Clarity on site.
Control in delivery.

Engagement scope — deliverables and responsibilities are confirmed in writing before work starts.

Best suited to

For quality leads and site teams needing a defined civil inspection scope.

Scope to agree

Agree the work packages, inspection points, applicable ITPs and non-conformity follow-up responsibilities.

Outputs to agree

Inspection records, a findings register and follow-up status against the agreed inspection scope.

What we need

Current approved drawings, specifications, ITPs, access arrangements and the project’s reporting rules.

Boundaries

Inspection support does not replace the designer, contractor’s quality system or an approval reserved to an authorized project role.

First discussion

Identify the work package, project location, required attendance and inspection responsibilities.

Engagement scope — deliverables and responsibilities are confirmed in writing before work starts.

Best suited to

For construction managers needing visibility of day-to-day civil execution.

Scope to agree

Define the areas and activities to observe, relevant approved drawings and the route for raising execution issues.

Outputs to agree

Site observations, an execution-issue log and agreed follow-up reporting.

What we need

Approved drawings, the work sequence, site access, reporting contacts and the authority matrix.

Boundaries

Supervision and inspection have different scopes. Design changes, contractor instructions and acceptance authority require explicit project authorization.

First discussion

Describe the site activities, attendance pattern and decision-making interfaces you need covered.

Engagement scope — deliverables and responsibilities are confirmed in writing before work starts.

Best suited to

For civil teams coordinating concrete activities and reinforcement interfaces.

Scope to agree

Define the readiness checks, interface owners, work sequence and information needed before the activity.

Outputs to agree

A readiness checklist, an interface-action list and a record of unresolved constraints.

What we need

Approved drawings, the planned sequence, relevant inspection requirements and subcontractor contacts.

Boundaries

The current description concerns reinforcement interfaces. Structural steel erection, temporary works and design responsibility are not implied by the title; any such scope must be defined separately.

First discussion

Specify whether your request concerns reinforcement, concrete activities or another steel-related scope.

Engagement scope — deliverables and responsibilities are confirmed in writing before work starts.

Best suited to

For quality and handover teams facing incomplete or fragmented civil quality records.

Scope to agree

Agree the record types, document structure, traceability references and outstanding-item follow-up.

Outputs to agree

An indexed quality-record pack, a missing-record list and a handover status overview.

What we need

Existing inspection records, test references, document-control rules and the client’s handover requirements.

Boundaries

Document organization cannot establish that an unrecorded inspection or test took place. Missing evidence remains identified as missing.

First discussion

Outline the work package, available records and required handover structure.

Engagement scope — deliverables and responsibilities are confirmed in writing before work starts.

Best suited to

For package owners and quality teams reviewing subcontractor submissions.

Scope to agree

Specify the document types, revisions and project requirements to review, and the comment-resolution process.

Outputs to agree

A review-comment register, requirement references and an open-item status list.

What we need

Submitted procedures or records, the applicable project controls and an identified document owner.

Boundaries

Review comments are not design verification, certification or formal approval unless the relevant authority is separately established.

First discussion

Identify the submissions, review criteria and required review sequence.

Engagement scope — deliverables and responsibilities are confirmed in writing before work starts.

Best suited to

For managers needing consistent daily or weekly technical reporting.

Scope to agree

Agree the audience, report structure, source information, reporting frequency and escalation criteria.

Outputs to agree

Draft reports, a referenced issue register and clearly identified items requiring a decision.

What we need

Site notes, agreed source records, the reporting template and responsible reviewers.

Boundaries

Reporting makes the available information visible. It does not independently validate every source or issue instructions on behalf of the client.

First discussion

Share the reporting purpose and a blank template or non-confidential description of the current process.

Engagement scope — deliverables and responsibilities are confirmed in writing before work starts.

Best suited to

For project and construction teams needing a consistent view of site progress.

Scope to agree

Agree work areas, reporting dates, progress references and the level of observation or measurement required.

Outputs to agree

Dated progress snapshots, a constraints list and inputs to the agreed look-ahead review.

What we need

The relevant programme, work breakdown, reporting cut-off and agreed progress definitions.

Boundaries

Progress observations are not a certified valuation, delay analysis or replacement for the project’s planning responsibility.

First discussion

Explain what progress you need to see and how the team will use the information.

Engagement scope — deliverables and responsibilities are confirmed in writing before work starts.

Best suited to

For European project teams coordinating quality interfaces across organizations or locations.

Scope to agree

Identify the interfaces, responsible contacts, communication rules and escalation route to be coordinated.

Outputs to agree

An interface-responsibility map, an action register and agreed coordination updates.

What we need

The project organization, scope boundaries, contact roles and relevant interface requirements.

Boundaries

This is a defined coordination scope, not a promise of full project management, local regulatory representation or authority over other organizations.

First discussion

Describe the organizations or locations involved and the specific coordination gap.

Engagement scope — deliverables and responsibilities are confirmed in writing before work starts.

Best suited to

For a process owner deciding where AI could support an existing construction workflow.

Scope to agree

Map one workflow, its baseline, available data, review responsibilities and relevant risks.

Outputs to agree

A workflow map, a baseline-and-risk summary and a proposed next-step scope for a go/no-go discussion.

What we need

A process owner, a description of the current workflow and permitted representative examples.

Boundaries

An assessment is not an implementation or a guaranteed savings calculation. Any benefit estimate needs an evidenced baseline and stated assumptions.

First discussion

Identify one recurring task and explain where the current process creates difficulty.

Engagement scope — deliverables and responsibilities are confirmed in writing before work starts.

Best suited to

For construction teams seeking practical skills rather than a software deployment.

Scope to agree

Agree a three-hour agenda for up to ten people, their starting level and relevant construction tasks.

Outputs to agree

A proposed session agenda, guided exercises and a checklist for reviewing the outputs used in the session.

What we need

Participant roles, learning objectives and permitted training examples. Confirm language, delivery format and tool access before booking.

Boundaries

The workshop does not include a production integration, professional certification or a guarantee of competence or regulatory compliance.

First discussion

Describe the participants, their current AI experience and the tasks they want to practise.

Engagement scope — deliverables and responsibilities are confirmed in writing before work starts.

Best suited to

For a site team exploring whether a controlled reporting trial fits its process.

Scope to agree

Agree one report type, permitted inputs, reviewers and evaluation criteria for the four-week trial.

Outputs to agree

A pilot reporting workflow, reviewed trial outputs and an end-of-trial findings summary.

What we need

Representative site notes, a reporting template, a designated reviewer and permission to use the trial data.

Boundaries

The pilot is not a general platform release. Continuation, integrations and wider rollout require a separate scope decision; no automatic extension is implied.

First discussion

Describe the report, current preparation process and available review capacity.

Engagement scope — deliverables and responsibilities are confirmed in writing before work starts.

Best suited to

For quality teams whose actions and source findings are difficult to reconcile.

Scope to agree

Define the purpose of the two registers, shared references, owners, status rules and review process for one site.

Outputs to agree

Two linked register structures, agreed field definitions and a review view of open or incomplete actions.

What we need

Representative registers, permitted data, action owners and the project’s status and closure rules.

Boundaries

A recorded status is not evidence of physical completion. Closure and technical acceptance remain with authorized project personnel.

First discussion

Explain what each register contains and how actions are currently assigned and closed.

Engagement scope — deliverables and responsibilities are confirmed in writing before work starts.

Best suited to

For a project team needing to find information within one controlled document library.

Scope to agree

Agree the included documents, revision rules, permitted users, question types and source-reference requirements.

Outputs to agree

A bounded retrieval workflow, source-referenced sample answers and a record of gaps identified during evaluation.

What we need

A document owner, authorized library access, usable documents, revision information and representative questions.

Boundaries

Answers depend on the available sources and need human review. Unsupported questions should be flagged. A connection to Aconex, SharePoint or another system, SSO and production hosting are not implied by this package description.

First discussion

Describe the library, access restrictions, document formats and questions users need answered.

Engagement scope — deliverables and responsibilities are confirmed in writing before work starts.

Best suited to

For site administration or logistics teams re-entering delivery-note information.

Scope to agree

Define one document family, up to three layouts, the fields to capture and the exception-review rules.

Outputs to agree

A proposed extraction workflow, a structured output table and a queue or list of records requiring review.

What we need

Permitted sample documents, legible source files, required fields and the intended output format.

Boundaries

Unclear or incomplete documents need manual review. ERP posting, payment authorization and automatic acceptance of deliveries are not included by implication.

First discussion

Describe the layouts, required fields and where the checked data needs to go.

Engagement scope — deliverables and responsibilities are confirmed in writing before work starts.

Best suited to

For project teams needing a consistent view of an existing dataset and its indicators.

Scope to agree

Agree the two sources, definitions for five indicators, reporting cut-off and refresh responsibility.

Outputs to agree

A dashboard scope with five defined indicators, source mappings and a proposed refresh-and-review procedure.

What we need

Authorized source data, an owner for each source and agreed calculation and reporting rules.

Boundaries

The dashboard cannot correct missing or inaccurate source records by itself. Real-time feeds, connectors and system licences are not implied.

First discussion

Identify the two sources and the five questions or indicators that matter to the team.

Engagement scope — deliverables and responsibilities are confirmed in writing before work starts.

Best suited to

For procurement or package teams comparing supplier offers for a defined category.

Scope to agree

Agree one category, an evaluation format, comparison criteria and the treatment of missing or non-equivalent information.

Outputs to agree

A comparison matrix, source references and a list of clarifications for the buyer’s review.

What we need

Authorized supplier offers, the requirement specification and agreed technical and commercial criteria.

Boundaries

The comparison supports a buyer’s review. It does not award a contract, negotiate terms or replace technical, commercial or legal approval.

First discussion

Describe the category, offers and criteria without sending confidential supplier material through the general form.