Ninety percent of a drawing is zero on site
Engineering keeps a register. Most projects have one, usually called a deliverable register or a document register, and it lists every drawing and document with a status against it.
It is almost always organised by discipline. Civil in one block, mechanical in another, electrical in a third. That is a sensible way to manage an engineering department, because that is how the department is staffed.
It is not a sensible way to plan construction
, and the mismatch is where the work of this week sits.
The question a planner has is not whether a drawing has been issued. It is which activity a drawing releases. Those look similar and they are not, and on most projects the link between them has never been made by anybody.
The mapping nobody owns
Engineering knows which drawings exist and what state they are in. Construction knows what it wants to build next month. Nothing connects the two lists.
So the planner builds the mapping: this activity needs these drawings, at this status, by this date. It is unglamorous work, it takes a week, and it is the single most useful thing that can be done with an engineering register.
Once it exists, the engineering deliverable list stops being a document management artefact and becomes a look-ahead input. Without it, the honest answer to whether next month can start is that nobody knows.
What ninety percent means
Engineering reports progress as a percentage, and the percentage is not comparable between people.
One engineer counts the calculations as the work, so ninety percent means the analysis is done. Another counts internal checking, so ninety percent means it has been reviewed. A third means the draft exists and the drawing has not been checked by anybody.
All three are defensible from inside the discipline. None of them tells a planner anything
, because a drawing at ninety percent that can't go to site releases no activity at all. From the construction side it is worth exactly the same as one that has not been started.
Released, or not released
Which is why the status that matters is binary rather than proportional. Either the drawing is released for construction, at the current revision, in the hands of the people who will build from it — or it is not.
That doesn't mean engineering should stop measuring percentage. They need it to manage their own workload, and it is a reasonable measure of effort. It means the planner should not use it as a readiness input, because it was never designed to be one.
Two measures, two purposes. The failure is using the first for the second because it is the one that arrives in a report.
Two programmes, one project
The last piece is the one that produces the most surprise in meetings.
Engineering runs to its own programme, sequenced by discipline and by how the design develops. Construction runs to what it needs next. Those two sequences are related but not identical, and they can diverge for months without anybody noticing.
The result is familiar: engineering reports a high overall percentage, the client is pleased, and nothing can start on site because the particular revision the next activity needs has not been issued. Both statements are true at once. Considerable progress on paper, no production in the field.
Reporting engineering progress against the construction sequence rather than against the engineering programme is what closes that gap, and it usually requires nothing new to be collected.
System design
The register engineering keeps and the view a planner needs are different cuts of the same list. This is the second one.
| Record | Produced by | Required quality | Verified against | Feeds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Deliverable list | Engineering | Mapped to the activity each drawing releases | Construction sequence | Look-ahead, constraints |
| Released status | Document control | Binary, and reflecting what the crew holds | Site spot check | Readiness test |
| Required-by date | Project controls | Derived from activity starts, not from engineering | Schedule | Engineering priorities |
The third row is the one that doesn't exist on most projects. Without a required-by date, engineering has no way to know which of two drawings matters more this month.
Practical insight
Take the ten activities in your next two months with the earliest starts. For each, write down which drawings have to be released for it to begin.
Then check each of those against the engineering register. You are looking for one thing: activities where every drawing shows a high percentage and none of them is released.
That list is your engineering risk for the quarter, and it won't appear in any engineering report, because from inside the discipline everything on it is nearly finished.
Key takeaways
- Deliverable registers are organised by discipline because that is how engineering is staffed.
- A planner needs the opposite view: which activity does this drawing release.
- Nobody owns that mapping. Building it takes a week and turns the register into a look-ahead input.
- Ninety percent means different things to different engineers, and all of them are defensible internally.
- A drawing that can't go to site releases nothing, whatever percentage it carries.
- Use percentage for engineering workload and released status for readiness. They are different measures.
- Engineering can be at ninety-five percent while nothing can start, and both statements are true.
Records born here. Drawing-to-activity map · required-by list · the engineering risk list for the quarter.
What is coming next
If percentage is the wrong measure for readiness, something has to replace it in the report.
Next week: measuring engineering progress — weighted deliverables, and the discipline where percent complete is easiest to fake.
Enjoyed this lesson?
Join with Google to get each new lesson the moment it's published — and help me see which topics matter most to you. No spam, one email a week, unsubscribe anytime.
Already following on LinkedIn works too — this is just for the weekly email.