Separate specialist tools vs one connected platform
Many capital project teams run a scheduling tool, a cost system, a document system, a quality app and a risk register, each chosen as the best at its job. This page looks at when that works well, what it costs to keep them in step, and when one connected platform is the better fit.
The short answer
Specialist tools are strongest when each team mostly works on its own and the tools already suit them. A connected platform pays off when decisions depend on seeing several areas at once, such as the cost and schedule impact of a change, and the work of reconciling separate systems has become a job in itself.
Where separate specialist tools work, and where they start to cost more
When separate specialist tools are the better choice
Depth in one area
A tool built only for scheduling or only for documents can go deeper in that area than a broader platform.
Teams already know them
Experienced schedulers or document controllers are productive in tools they've used for years. Changing has a real cost.
Already paid for and set up
Existing licences, templates and integrations represent years of investment that shouldn't be thrown away lightly.
Swap one without the rest
If one tool stops suiting you, you can replace it without touching the others.
Where separate specialist tools start to cost more
The same data is keyed in twice
Activities, cost codes, contractors and documents are set up separately in each tool and drift apart over time.
Reconciliation becomes a job
Someone spends days each period matching cost to progress and progress to the schedule before anything can be reported.
Change impact isn't visible
Seeing what an approved variation does to cost, schedule, risk and documents means checking several systems and combining the answers by hand.
Integrations need upkeep
Links between tools break when one is upgraded or a field changes, and fixing them usually needs a specialist.
No single version of the truth
When two tools disagree, meetings go on working out which number is right instead of what to do about it.
How the two compare
- Depth in a single area
- Separate specialist toolsOften deeperOne connected platformBroad, covering the areas that need to connect
- Seeing several areas at once
- Separate specialist toolsCombined by handOne connected platformBuilt in
- Impact of a change
- Separate specialist toolsChecked system by systemOne connected platformVisible in one place
- Data set up once
- Separate specialist toolsNo, per toolOne connected platformYes
- Integration upkeep
- Separate specialist toolsOngoingOne connected platformMinimal inside the platform
- Logins and licences
- Separate specialist toolsOne per toolOne connected platformOne
- Switching cost
- Separate specialist toolsLow per toolOne connected platformHigher, but once
| Aspect | Separate specialist tools | One connected platform |
|---|---|---|
| Depth in a single area | Often deeper | Broad, covering the areas that need to connect |
| Seeing several areas at once | Combined by hand | Built in |
| Impact of a change | Checked system by system | Visible in one place |
| Data set up once | No, per tool | Yes |
| Integration upkeep | Ongoing | Minimal inside the platform |
| Logins and licences | One per tool | One |
| Switching cost | Low per tool | Higher, but once |
Signs you have outgrown separate specialist tools
If two or three of these sound familiar, it's worth looking at the alternative.
- 1Your period report takes longer to reconcile than to review.
- 2Meetings open with a debate about which system's number is right.
- 3Nobody can answer quickly what a change does to cost and schedule together.
- 4You rely on one person to keep the integrations or exports between tools working.
- 5New starters need accounts and training in five or more systems.
One connected record, launching first for EPCM, shutdowns and turnarounds
Strataverra connects schedule, cost, change, quality, risk and documents in one record, so a change on site shows in the forecast straight away. You may not need to replace every tool: schedules built elsewhere can be imported from Primavera P6 and Microsoft Project files. Strataverra is launching first for EPCM projects, shutdowns and turnarounds.
Explore the platformCommon questions
Do we have to replace all our tools at once?
No. Most teams start with the areas where the reconciliation work hurts most, usually cost, progress and change, and keep specialist tools where they still earn their place.
Isn't a connected platform a jack of all trades?
It can be, which is why it's worth checking each area against what your team actually uses day to day. The case for a platform rests on the connections between areas, so judge it on those as much as on any single feature.
Can't we just integrate the tools we have?
Often you can, and for two or three tools it may be enough. The cost is building and maintaining each link, and integrations usually copy data on a schedule rather than sharing one record, so the systems can still disagree between updates.