Having several preconstruction solutions might feel like you're covering all your bases. After all, multiple tools mean more features, which means more capabilities to enable better outcomes… right?
Not quite.
Juggling various tools often leads to inefficiencies and data silos, especially when they're not integrated. This issue is far more common than most teams want to admit. Case in point: we surveyed our preconstruction advisory group at Autodesk to ask about the number of tools they use. The lowest number of tools used was 10, and the highest was 20. Members shared that many of these tools were disconnected, under various user management systems, and captured multiple data sources.
That's hardly a recipe for efficiency. Remember, the goal of optimizing preconstruction is to de-risk the project upfront. Having disconnected tools does the opposite: it adds more risk because information gets scattered and accountability becomes harder to track.
This article will cover the inefficiencies and risks of a non-integrated precon tech stack and explain why a tightly connected preconstruction platform is essential for reducing risk in your projects.
Having 10 to 20 different tools for preconstruction seems excessive. So, how do teams end up adopting and settling for multiple, disconnected solutions?
Teams can sometimes operate solely in their own lanes, so it's up to each group to pick tools that solve their specific problems without coordinating with the broader department. As more tools pile up, no one stops to ask whether these solutions work together. Over time, technical debt creeps in and you're left with siloed data, inconsistent processes, and a tech stack that no one fully understands.
When a new tool promises something exciting (e.g., a new AI-enabled feature), it can be tempting to jump on it right away. But if that software doesn't fit into your existing ecosystem, you could end up with an application that doesn't add a lot of value. You end up creating extra steps, duplicating data, and adding friction to workflows.
It can be a classic case of "better the devil you know." Staying with what you're used to can feel safer than tackling the messy work of consolidating tools. Even if your current setup is clunky, at least it's familiar. But holding onto outdated, disconnected systems only makes the problems grow. The longer teams wait, the harder it becomes to unwind the complexity and move toward something better.
It's no secret that cobbling together tools leads to technical debt. It slows teams down and creates more work than it solves. But beyond that, a scattered tech stack can also result in headaches like:
The lack of streamlined workflows not only slows teams down and creates friction, but it also leads to more serious risks that can hurt projects. Consider the following.
When teams rely on separate tools, information gets passed around in different formats and contexts. It's easy for assumptions to sneak in or for someone to miss a key detail during a handoff.
A small slip, such as an outdated quantity or a missed spec, can snowball once the project moves into estimating or buyout. By the time the mistake is caught, you're looking at rework, delays, and frustrated stakeholders.
When data lives across many systems, everyone ends up with their own version of the truth.
Picture a scenario where the precon team updates pricing in one tool, but the design team is still working from last week's numbers in another. This type of situation creates confusion, slow decision-making, and can even throw off the project budget.
Disconnected tools make it difficult for teams to see the same information at the same time. That lack of visibility leads to misalignment around scope, priorities, and expectations.
Maybe the GC believes a scope package is ready to move forward, while engineering thinks it still needs refinement. Or the owner is basing decisions on outdated reports. These disconnects often turn into change orders, delays, and unnecessary tension between teams who should be collaborating toward the same goal.
When it comes to disconnected software, there's almost always one common culprit in the middle of it all: Excel.
But Excel still dominates preconstruction workflows, mainly because it's accessible and most estimators are familiar with it. Spreadsheets are accepted as the status quo, but sticking to them leads to issues like:
And those issues above aren't just minor headaches; they have serious real-world consequences, including delays, mistakes, and missed opportunities.
The solution here is to leverage tools designed for the construction industry, rather than sticking to an extremely limited general tool (no matter how comfortable it may be to use).
If you've read this far, you likely already see the value of a connected preconstruction platform. The question is, how do you get your organization's stakeholders to recognize that value and rally behind the change?
Corporate leaders and decision-makers often respond to data. If you're looking to revamp your tech stack and leverage a connected platform, you need to calculate ROI and demonstrate the tangible benefits of moving away from fragmented tools.
These can include:
Another thing that will help your case is to share industry data and real examples from other construction firms.
The Business Value of ACC report does exactly that, by highlighting survey insights and verified case study metrics that show how connected workflows improve project performance.
There are many methods for calculating the costs of non-integrated tools, but one of the easiest is to estimate the time you lose when your systems aren't connected.
Here's a simple formula you can use:
(Hours spent on finding data/information + hours spent on duplication + hours fixing errors) × hourly rate
= hidden cost per week
For example, if your team spends 3 hours a week finding the right files and information (e.g., estimates, correct version set for drawings, etc.), 3 hours a week re-entering data, another 2 hours fixing issues caused by mismatched spreadsheets, that's 8 hours lost. Multiply that by an average hourly rate of $60, and you're looking at $480 per week, or nearly $25,000 a year—from just one estimator.
If you're open to it, share your results in the comments or tag me on LinkedIn so we can keep the conversation going.
The cost of juggling disconnected tools adds up quickly. A unified preconstruction platform helps teams reduce errors and focus on what actually moves projects forward.
Ready to unify and streamline your preconstruction workflows? Check out Autodesk's Preconstruction Bundle today.
