| Route | Potential fit | Main advantage to test | Main ownership burden | Evidence required before selection |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Process improvement in current tools | Delays come from missing documents or approvals | Better flow with little new infrastructure | Maintaining the procedure | Before/after waiting and rework |
| Configure current estimating platform | Required feature already exists or needs standardisation | Existing data and user familiarity | Assemblies, rates, training and edition management | Demonstration in your licensed edition |
| Add specialist mechanical estimating | Takeoff and cost structure are the core gap | Domain-specific estimating workflow | Migration and trade configuration | Full unfamiliar bid with exceptions |
| Add document/revision assistance | Core estimating is sound; document work is repetitive | Bounded change to the stack | Source evidence and review process | Coverage and omission tests |
| Add workflow integration | Rekeying or approval routing dominates | Fewer handoffs | Field ownership and failure handling | Sandbox reconciliation and recovery |
| Bespoke application | A repeated, valuable gap survives all other checks | Tailored workflow | Technical ownership, support and exit | Paid discovery plus holdout proof |
| Outsourced preparation service | Workload is intermittent or internal capacity is limited | Capacity without permanent application ownership | Quality review and confidentiality | Sample deliverable, reviewer and turnaround terms |
Do not equate “no new licence” with zero cost: internal configuration and review consume staff time. Conversely, do not assume a bespoke build is wasteful if a well-defined gap materially affects operations.
Sources cited on this page
No external sources are cited on this page. Every source for this section is listed on its Sources page.