Paul Watkins BSc(Hons)MRICS, Sales & Marketing Director, Masterbill

For the quantity surveyor the quality of data has always been key to the service they provide, with most QSs subscribing to the view that "information is king" in their role within the construction industry. However, in recent years the communication and presentation of data has become almost as important as the data itself.

The modern day quantity surveyor or "construction cost consultant" has a dual role. First, they are to collect and collate all data that is relevant to the cost of a construction project and interpret it to establish its implications on the overall cost. Second, they are to communicate these implications to both their fellow construction professionals and their client for consideration and, if necessary, action.

We have all heard the expressions: "You only get one chance to make a good first impression" and "The first figure you see is the one you remember" and these both hold true for the quantity surveyor practicing in 2003, especially when you consider that they are often under pressure to justify their existence.

Quantity surveyors have always been very good manipulators and interpreters of data in order to accurately predict the costs of a construction project and the communication of the data has always been important. But in the competitive market of recent years, I believe the differentiating factor between QSs is often their ability to present the data in a format that is understandable and useful to the construction professional and construction client alike. 

Quantity surveyors will always be under-valued if they insist on treating the work they do as a "trade secret" and simply present the results. It is the QS who explains their methodology to their client who will, I believe, not just gain their client's respect but also more than justify their existence.

Charles Barber MCIOB, Managing Director, ECL

Do the Professions share anything in common besides clients?  Perhaps more than they sometimes think. 

Quantity surveyors and engineers for instance don't always realise that they share a philosophy of: "Check a calculation with an approximation. We know that's what it says, but is it right?" Risk evaluation and judgement is a skill common to both. Careful analysis of data yields benefit for both professions and both have lots of data to work with!

Technology is another area that is shared.  Microsoft and Autodesk technology predominates amongst all construction professions and increasingly, the flow of data is therefore easier to achieve.  Real automation of processes can result. Software should not aim to replace expertise but it can certainly improve the quality and quantity of output.

More and more clients are interested in the technology being brought to bear on their projects and professionals need to show that, by the application of a standard process backed up by technology and software, they can deliver a high quality and cost effective service. 

Professional consultants should "design in" their service to clients. Those who rely on the "good contact" method of maintaining client relationships will increasingly struggle.

Quantity surveyors can join in all this by using software from companies like ECL. Increasingly used by leading firms, immense improvement in accuracy and speed is being achieved, allowing a fully integrated design and cost process to be brought to bear.

Q. With the continued development of e-business applications throughout the construction industry, where can the QS really capitalise in terms of streamlining measurement, BOQ and tendering processes?

Paul Watkins, Masterbill

The majority of e-business applications that have been adopted within the construction industry perform a single function - project collaboration, and it is with the increased adoption of these applications that the QS is presented with at least two opportunities to streamline their measurement and tendering processes.

The majority of the information a QS receives during a construction project is design information in drawn format. The increased use of project collaboration systems has led to the drawn information increasingly being made available to the QS in electronic format.  When it comes to making use of this drawn information, the QS has two options.

Firstly, he could choose to print the drawings himself in order to continue to use traditional measurement techniques, an option which results in the QS incurring additional costs in hardware and consumables in order to continue to carry out their measurement function.  Sticking with the traditional methods means the QS is missing out on an opportunity not just to save on the hardware and consumables costs, but also to radically streamline the amount of time spent on measurement. 

Software is now available which supports a second option. It enables the QS to make full use of the electronic format drawings and carry out measurements in a fraction of the time by using a similar approach to paper-based drawings "on screen".   In addition, the software also makes it possible to automate some of the simpler measurement tasks and provides tools to simplify complex measurements such as cut-and-fill and drainage.

The tendering process provides another opportunity for streamlining. The QS can now provide all tendering information in an electronic form to the numerous contractors and sub-contractors that tender on a project and request that tenders are returned electronically, thus enabling the QS to streamline their tender analysis and comparison procedures by once again making maximum use of their software. 

However, Masterbill's recent experiences in this area show that while the QS is often enthusiastic about streamlining this process, the contractors are reluctant to adopt alternative ways of working, especially if they perceive it may take longer on the first project whilst they learn the system.

Q. Do fears such as differing data standards, system incompatibility, data accuracy issues or perceived confidentiality breaches threaten to undermine a sharing infrastructure between QSs and their fellow Construction Professionals?  Or is seamless interfacing now a reality?

John Whitehead, Snape Computers Ltd.

Exchanging data reliably between the different parties of the construction chain is very important today.  There is, however, a major difference between how smaller organizations will exchange the critical information necessary for effective construction management and how the major clients, national contractors and the large professional practices will operate on major projects.

Recently, my company provided a custom software solution for handling the measurement, specification and costing for the building works of a major retailer.  All parties in the chain use the software: architects, quantity surveyors, contractors, major subcontractors and project managers. Files are exchanged via the Internet.  The results have worked exceptionally well for all parties.

We provided first-rate software for the project, but there was also real clarity of thinking, combined with quality management of the client's particular needs and the operational requirements of the contractors and surveyors. For major clients and contracts it is both desirable and possible to lay down well thought out standards and channels by which information is passed, and insist that all parties conform. With good implementation, all parties gain substantially.

It is just as desirable that the smaller players can exchange information as efficiently as the "big boys," but the starting point of making this process work is to recognise the world as it really is.

Most contractors/ PQSs/ project managers work with many different organizations.  Inevitably these firms will be using different software that is not directly compatible, and therefore exchanging data using an intermediate file format, commonly C.I.T.E, ASCII, Excel, and Microsoft Word / RTF (XML is likely to become important in the future.) Our users are nevertheless exchanging files as a matter of routine. The process is usually seamless, but it should be remembered that all these intermediate "standards" leave room for different interpretation that can cause hiccups.

Take Microsoft Excel as an example. There is a vast range of different ways that Bill of Quantities can be created.  Descriptions can be in a single cell or spread over a number of separate cells. There may or may not be a blank line between each description or there may be lined, blank or hidden columns for internal reference or calculation.  Graphic images may be put in a column that is normally used for another purpose or the length of page, treatment of headers and footers, collections and summaries may vary. The bill may be created on a single sheet, or spread over several.

Our approach with our software programs is to cater for as many standards as possible and make the import and export routines as flexible as possible, so they can accommodate these many different interpretations. Critically, we provide a first-rate technical support service so if we are e-mailed a file, we can advise what is necessary to make import/export routines work. 

The best results are achieved when the software vendor takes the time to explain the issues involved.

Paul Watkins, Masterbill

When you consider that the majority of information passed between the members of a project team is in drawn format and that the majority of designers now use CAD software and CAD systems that will produce an AutoCAD dwg format, file data standards, system incompatibility and data accuracy are not really major issues. 

Confidentiality breaches could be an issue as designers are now issuing drawings in a format that can easily be re-used and/or manipulated. But when you consider that most projects have unique design solutions and paper-based drawings could be easily scanned or traced, then it is hard to believe that this is any more of an issue now than it was twenty years ago.  The fear of a breach in this area should not undermine a sharing infrastructure, as any real fear could be overcome with the adoption of a confidentiality agreement signed by all members of the project team.

Seamless interfacing is an ideal that implies that all parties will have the same systems, when in reality this is not the case. But we are now at a point where each party can adopt their own specialist solutions in order to interface with the specialist solutions adopted by other parties, albeit that an agreed file format may need to be adopted.

With regards to electronic tendering, it seems that whilst data standards have been set in the past, their partial adoption by software vendors and users means their true benefits are yet to be realised, which in turn has led to a number of QSs becoming frustrated with the standards and looking to alternative options for streamlining this process. 

In our experience, the biggest obstacle to realising the benefits of electronic tendering continues to be the unwillingness of contractors to work with the QS to ensure mutual benefit, such as thinking only how the estimator is able to import the BQ into their estimating system, rather than considering how it could be returned once completed.