Hundreds of projects were being delivered, but the company did not run them in one consistent way.

Engagement at a glance

• Client profile: major general contractor
• Operating context: hundreds of projects and recurring handoffs between project and company teams
• Starting issue: process inconsistency, silos and manual work
• Boris & Associates Inc. work: company-wide process mapping, redesign priorities, ownership, data and technology requirements

What was making the company harder to manage?

The same business activity could be performed differently from one project to another. That variation was not always driven by project needs; much of it came from missing standards, unclear ownership and systems that did not follow the full process.

Projects filled the gaps

Project managers created local forms, trackers and approval paths to keep work moving.

Departments saw only part of the process

Estimating, operations, finance and project teams managed their own step without one owner for the full result.

Reports required reconstruction

Information was collected from several places before leadership could use it.

Which processes were examined?

The work followed the project life cycle and the company functions that support it. We looked at the points where commitments, information, decisions and accountability moved from one team to another.

From estimate to operations

Budget assumptions, scope, risk, procurement needs and the handoff into project startup.

During project delivery

Planning, cost, forecast, changes, documents, procurement, reporting and escalation.

At closeout and learning

Handover, final records, commercial closure and feedback into future estimates and projects.

What did Boris & Associates Inc. change?

We created one view of the company’s recurring work, identified where variation was useful or harmful and set an order for redesign. The goal was not more procedure. It was to make critical work predictable while leaving project teams room to respond to the job.

Current work made visible

Mapped actual steps, decisions, systems and workarounds with the people doing the work.

Clear process ownership

Named who owns the end result, not only the department’s individual task.

Redesigned priority processes

Simplified handoffs, approvals, controls and exception paths.

Defined information needs

Established what data each step creates, who owns it and where it should live.

Connected the technology plan

Identified system gaps, integrations and automation only after the improved process was clear.

How did the work avoid creating more bureaucracy?

Standards were focused on the decisions and controls that matter across every project. Detailed procedures were kept only where the risk, contract or operating need justified them. Exceptions were made visible instead of forcing teams into hidden workarounds.

Minimum common controls

A small number of non-negotiable points across projects.

Role-based work

Clear expectations for executives, directors, project managers, project controls, finance and the field.

Exceptions with ownership

A defined way to approve and learn from necessary deviations.

What did the engagement produce?

Leadership received a company-wide view of recurring processes, a prioritized redesign agenda and the ownership, information and technology requirements needed to implement it. The outputs gave the PMO, operations, finance and IT one sequence instead of separate improvement lists.

A company process map

A connected view from opportunity and estimating through delivery and closeout.

Priority redesign packages

Defined problems, future work, roles, controls and measures for the first processes.

Data and system requirements

A clear link between the improved work and the tools needed to support it.

An implementation sequence

A practical order for pilot, training, rollout and management review.

What can another general contractor learn?

If every project has a different process, leadership is managing personalities instead of a company. The answer is not to remove project judgment. It is to make the important handoffs, definitions, decisions and controls consistent enough that good project management can work at scale.

Continue with the related work

Use these links to move from the client situation to the service and audience pages that explain the work in more detail.

Construction Transformation System

General Contractors

Questions construction leaders ask

These are the questions we hear most often from construction leaders facing the same operating challenge.

Does standardizing project processes remove flexibility?

No. It makes core expectations clear and preserves flexibility where project conditions genuinely differ.

Can process redesign happen while projects are active?

Yes. The work can be piloted in selected projects and introduced by operating cycle instead of forcing every job to change at once.

What role should the PMO play?

The PMO should own or support common project controls, help teams use the standards and turn project evidence into company improvement - not only collect reports.

Are your best project managers carrying processes the company should own?

We can help you see where project variation is necessary, where it is costing the business and which processes should be redesigned first.