I'm confident that most of the people who read this blog
will agree that there are distinct differences in the application of project
Document Control versus the application of other information related functions
such as Records Management or Operational Document Control or non-technical
Document Management. Then there are differences across sectors of Engineering
as to how Document Control is approached and generally understood.
There are experts in the field of Records Management that
are highly competent and very experienced but really would not have the first
idea of how to set up a project Document Control function. There are people
with degrees in Information Management who don't even know what we mean by
project Document Control. Believe me this is not conjecture, I have had the
honour of having to work with many such people; I learnt something from them
and I like to think some of them learnt something from me. For example, when I
want your opinion, I'll give it!
(Of course I also know some world class Information
Managers and even some Records Managers who understand what Document Control
should look like, but they all started out as Document Controllers themselves).
Meanwhile, if you think I'm stretching the facts,
consider this. The Gartner Guide is used by many businesses to select the best
EDRMS tools. If a system sits in their 'magic quadrant' then it's considered a
safe bet. Well I've been interviewed by two representatives from Gartner on two
separate occasions, where I was involved in a system selection process. On both
occasions, so that they could understand the requirements for the system, I had
to explain at length and from scratch, what Document Control is, how it works
and why it's important. They could then begin to understand the difference
between content management which is their area of expertise and Document
Control, which is mine.
Many, many companies have invested hundreds of millions
(conservative estimate) in these systems, having taken advice from such experts
and from Records Management experts and Information Management experts and of
course the 'A' list consultancies who know that these systems are a meal ticket
for them, only to discover that they need to spend millions more on
customisation, more consultancy and on bolting on things the system is not
designed to do. For example bulk upload metadata without content. In that time
of course they may also have lost money on claims, lost work and missed
deadlines, KPI payments, been hit with disallowed costs etc, etc for lack of
traceability and proper reporting.
(Obviously there are realms of content management and
record management requirements outside of project Document Control whereby an
EDRMS content solution makes perfect sense, particularly for big corporations
and global enterprises however, a proper Document Control database is also
needed and there are so many examples where that alone would more than fulfil
the requirement).
I have complete respect for my fellow colleagues and for
their expertise in their own fields. Obviously good Records Management is
essential. Patently, for the sake of our planet, good Operational Document
Management is paramount and of course there are thousands of other business sectors
like Legal, Banking, Retail and so on where there are different requirements in
Document/Content Management.
The fact is however, that on engineering projects,
without best practise project Document Control the Records Manager won't have
everything they need to archive and the Operations team will have neither the
complete record or the quality and compliance across the docbase that is
critical not only for Safety but for the performance and maintenance of the
asset.
This is one of the multitude of reasons that Deliverable
Schedules are so essential. Getting the information up front from Contractors
and Vendors so that you can plan the distribution and approvals but also so
that you know what you should have to handover and that the supply chain have
signed up to it. Which takes me back to bulk uploading of metadata without file
content; it's a fundamental requirement of project Document Control. If a
system doesn't have that then I need something that does.
A very common syndrome is that many businesses have
compromised by adjusting how they work according to what the system they've
spent so much on is capable of. The words tail and dog spring to mind.
I'm interested to know others experiences across
different sectors. I personally believe very strongly that there are key
pillars of best practise that apply in all sectors, be it Rail, Aviation, Oil
and Gas, Civils, Mining, Defence. Meanwhile I have spoken to Nuclear Power
owner operators who, like the Gartner reps, had no idea what I was talking
about. It was all new. Same in Aerospace, same in Mining, Utilities etc and
even when companies do acknowledge a need, there is still a vast spectrum in
their levels of understanding and therefore across the standards and application
of Document Control across these sectors.
An obvious result of this lack of understanding is
reflected in the quality of people that get hired to do Document Control. Where
there is no recognition of the function as a discipline, people will be hired
with little or no experience because they are cheap and they'' do what they're
told by someone else who doesn't know what needs to be done. Then someone
decides that a new system will solve their problems, so they get some expensive
consultants to send in some business analysts to define requirements. They get
the requirements from the users who don't know anything but the consultants
don't care because they can deliver a system that they know will generate more
work for them when the business wises up that the requirements were inadequate.
It's called the 'long con'.
I heard of a major airport programme for example where
all the legacy drawings were lost; out on the site somewhere, thrown into old
containers and nobody could remember where. So they had to re-survey the whole
site. I've heard of facilities being built to hundreds of rejected drawings
that are currently operating. I had a colleague that worked on a massive
refinery programme where one of the US design houses engaged in a long running
battle with him because he insisted that they keep the same drawing and
document numbers throughout their lifecycle and uprev them when they
resubmitted. They insisted that he was wrong and that they always change the
drawing number and keep the revision the same! You couldn't make it up.
I am trying to highlight, again, the need for recognition
of expertise in the field of project Document Control, specifically. I am
interested in others views and experiences on the subject and I am interested
in raising the profile of so many highly professional practitioners that I've
had the great pleasure to work with over the last 30+ years, many of whom I
count as close friends.
I've lost count of the number of times I've heard people
dismiss Document Control with the tired line 'it's not rocket science'. No it
's not, neither is designing a bridge, but there is a science to delivering first
class project Document Control and it's value is immeasurable. The people who
can deliver that should also be recognised and valued.
Richard Spragg writes on various subjects including global engineering staffing and global engineering jobs.
