Client teams responsible for owning and operating a portfolio of assets typically procure an information management platform to prepare for custodianship of delivery team data and to improve operational efficiency. During implementation, processes are configured for the asset's operational needs; many of these depend on the quality of upstream information received from the delivery team. This data supports operations, maintenance and compliance, and flows into future projects and organisational knowledge. Measures must therefore ensure its quality at the point of delivery and its availability throughout the assets lifecycle, where its value compounds over time.
Client teams can choose from three collaboration models with the contractor responsible for delivering the asset, and its data. Each directly impacts the quality and timeliness of the information they will remain responsible for long after the delivery team has left the project.
Option 1
Complete approvals within the contractor's platform; accept a handover package upon stage completion.
LATE - Handover to the client platform occurs when the contractor deems ready. The same applies to updates during handover and defects liability phases.
INCOMPLETE - Only a subset of metadata, typically limited to file and folder structure, is available for manual import.
INCOMPATIBLE - Data must be manually restructured for use in downstream workflows.
INCONSISTENT - Handover formats vary between contractors, limiting standardisation across projects.
UNVERIFIED - Validation is restricted to tooling within the contractor’s platform.
DEAD - The client platform becomes a storage location rather than an active system.
Option 2
Complete approvals within the contractor's platform, but require automation to deliver approved information immediately to the client platform. Updates during defects liability are also delivered immediately.
ACCURATE - Deliverables are aligned to operational workflow requirements.
AVAILABLE - Approved information can be deployed earlier.
COMPLETE - API connectivity retrieves full document datasets, including approval context.
COMPATIBLE - Data is structured for downstream operational workflows.
CONSISTENT - A defined handover interface enables standardisation across projects.
MANAGED - Client teams can manage deliverables across the portfolio and assess performance indicators.
Option 3
Complete approval processes within the client platform, where information becomes immediately available via automation. Both client and contractor continue to use their platform of choice.
AVAILABLE - Approved information is usable immediately.
COMPLETE - Full document context is retrieved from the contractor platform, while approval context is captured natively for downstream workflows.
COMPATIBLE - Information structures align with downstream operational workflows.
VERIFIED - Client teams can build and apply their own quality control processes and supporting tooling to assure the data received.
SCALABLE - Portfolio-wide trends and performance indicators can be established.
There will always be tension between client and contractor interests. It is more convenient for contractors to work in their own platform, where they can enforce their standards. In practice, client teams often default to this model, as it avoids the integration conversation and the associated cost. Pragmatism takes precedence.
However, clients should recognise the value provided by options 2 and 3 and take responsibility for integration as a core system component, rather than treating it as a contractor liability.
The next frontier for improving client outcomes lies in establishing control over how information is structured, validated, and made available within their own platform. This requires mandating the use of the client platform and implementing automation to meet system requirements.
So next time “convenience” is used as a reason to stay in the contractor’s platform, consider the cost of that decision against the alternative models outlined in this article.