----- TEST SITE -----

in the Building Industry
a Case study 


Our client, a mid-size building company with the (fictitious) name 'Constructa', has activities happening at between 50-100 building sites, at any one time, spread out over a wide region.

Before the introduction of WorkPlace, Constructa had a largely manual system keeping records of assets (tools, vehicles, cranes, etc.) used on each building site. Often, when equipment was missing, it had to be 'remembered' where it was last used and by whom. More often than not, equipment went missing and was never recovered.

Another one of Constructa's main activities was the use and hire (out) of scaffolding materials. The company owns a large amount of scaffolding materials which is used around their own building sites and is also being hired to other construction companies via a subsidiary.
Constructa used a manual/paper system to keep track of scaffolding movements between sites and associated charges, to their own customers and the building companies hiring from them.
One admin staff was allocated for several days each billing cycle to complete the administration and cost calculations that were fed into the accounting system. Due to the complexity, many errors were made that went either unnoticed or would have to be corrected later.

After evaluating various products, it was found that WorkConcept's WorkPlace product came closest to solving Constructa's need.

A pilot implementation was conducted involving various staff, including:

  • 'Floor workers' entering equipment and scaffolding movements straight into the system from their workplace ('at the source'),
  • Admin staff running cost calculations and detailed reporting, parallel to their manual system,
  • Management, to see overview reporting and general usage and reporting capabilities,


Implementation was done with the help of Constructa's out-sourced IT provider. Because WorkPlace is based on standard Microsoft products, and the easy installation procedure, even for relatively complex networks, installation proved to be effortless.

Initial setup and configuration, although assisted by a setup wizard, was done with a limited amount of consultation through WorkConcept's 'Installation Service', providing phone and remote support to technical staff and end-users during the implementation phase..


Although a pilot for two months was planned, after one month it was suggested by the admin staff that there was no need for further delay (they were the ones running the 'parallel system' with WorkPlace and the manual system...).
Cost calculations for scaffolding hire, normally a several days job, now took 30 minutes, most of which was spent to skim over the numbers to see if anything out of the ordinary could be spotted, which would suggest incorrect data entry.

The evaluation showed that WorkPlace:

  • Was smooth to implement technically, using the existing company network infrastructure,
  • Was smooth to implement functionally. With initial assistance from WorkConcept's 'Installation Service' it was simple for the company themselves to customize the system optimally to their requirements,
  • Was highly customizable to the company's specific needs,
  • Scaled seamless to the size of the company,
  • Was 100% accurate (assuming correct data entry), every time, all the time (leaving the manual system far behind.....),
  • Was easy to use, even by the most 'challenged' staff in the company,
  • Needed no long term support from WorkConcept (although support IS available when needed),
  • Provided virtual instant payback, thanks to WorkPlace's flexible licensing scheme.


The system was thus adopted and instantly became part of the core operation of the company. From that moment on, WorkPlace's detailed reports on scaffolding hire were mailed out along with the monthly invoices to their customers, improving the company's quality and profile, in accuracy as well as transparency and accountability.


What was 'most liked' about the system, going by the staff's feedback, was:

  • Managers and staff alike, could instantly see what equipment was located at any selected building site(s) at any one time (like 'now'!), including who had been responsible for taking it there (the 'who took it' factor....!),

  • Managers could see:

    - What equipment had been used at any selected building site(s), for some or all of the duration of the job,

    - What equipment had been used very little or not at all(!),

    - The cost associated with either of those.

  • For the first time, management could get a clear overview of how much equipment was 'used up' over a period of time, because it had come to the end of its useful life, or was otherwise lost, where it was lost, and by whom it was last used,

  • 'Floor workers' liked the ease of entering information about equipment movements, although many were previously unfamiliar with doing any computer work at all,

  • Admin staff, involved in hire-cost calculation liked..... the cost calculation, which went from a complex adminstrative burden to a very simple administrative task.

  • Their customers liked to receive the detailed reporting on what they were being charged for.


Overall, the implementation of WorkPlace was considered a great success.


Installation Service
Template Service
User Manual


© 2009-2012 WorkConcept | All rights reserved.