You create an ITP document. It defines what needs testing, when, to what standard, who's responsible.
Then it gets stored in the CDE. Filed away. Treated like a static deliverable.
Six months in, someone asks: "Have we actually completed all the ITPs?" Honest answer: nobody knows. Because the ITP is a document in a folder, not a data record being tracked. Testing happens scattered across site notebooks, emails, photos, spreadsheets. By handover, you're hunting for evidence.
This isn't quality failure. It's architectural failure.
ITPs shouldn't be documents. They should be data records you track and report on.
And it's expensive.
The Reality of ITP Management Today
ITP created: A document. Detailed. Covers design verification, material testing, site inspections, system tests. Signed off. Stored in the CDE.
Week 1-30: Document sits in the CDE. Static. Nobody actively tracking it.
Design phase: Design verification maybe done. But there's no data record. Evidence is a memo. Maybe.
Site phase: Inspections happen. But there's no centralized tracking. Results logged in notebooks, emails, WhatsApp, photos. Scattered everywhere.
Compliance phase: Team hunts for evidence. "Which tests were actually done? Did they meet acceptance criteria?" Can't query the data because it's not data—it's a document buried in a CDE with scattered results elsewhere.
Handover: "Which ITPs were completed? Which have gaps? Where's the proof?" Discovery mode. Crisis.
Operations: Assets inherited without knowing which tests were verified or whether gaps exist. Compliance questions emerge months later.
Why This Happens
ITPs are treated as documents, not data records. You create an ITP document, store it in the CDE, and treat it like a deliverable: file and forget.
But ITPs need to be live data. Trackable. Queryable. Connected to actual testing as it happens.
When ITPs are just documents in a CDE, there's no line of sight from ITP requirement to actual test to evidence. Testing happens elsewhere. Results scatter. By handover, you can't even answer: "Which ITPs were completed?"
The Cost of ITP Gaps
Gaps discovered late are expensive:
During design: Verification incomplete. Rework. Redesign.
On site: Test missed. Work proceeds unverified. Later discovered it fails. Rework.
At handover: Results missing. Compliance gaps. Delayed handover.
In operations: Assets maintained without knowing what was verified. Failures emerge. Safety risk.
ITP gaps cost money because they're discovered backward—from outcome, not from plan.
The Better Approach: ITPs as Data Records
ITPs shouldn't be documents filed in a CDE. They should be data records you track, query, and report on.
From planning: Define ITPs (design verification, material testing, site inspections), acceptance criteria, responsibility, schedule. Build the data structure.
To design: Designers see required verifications. System tracks which are complete, which pending. Gaps surface before work proceeds.
To site: Teams see which inspections are due. Results logged live as data records. Photos auto-linked. System validates against acceptance criteria. Status updates in real-time.
To handover: Every ITP queryable: complete, with conditions, or gap. Full evidence trail. Operations gets complete test history.
The ITP is now a data record, not a document. An actual tracking system showing in real-time whether testing is complete and acceptance criteria are met. You can query it. Report on it. Track it live.
What This Looks Like in Practice
Design Verification:
Old way: Design verification maybe done. Evidence is a memo.
New way: ITP requirement active in design workflow. Checker signs off in the system. Compliance proof recorded automatically.
Material Testing:
Old way: Concrete test done. Results logged on site form, lost in the system. Handover: "Which loads were tested?" Partial answer.
New way: Test logged live. System validates against acceptance criteria. Compliance status updates automatically. Handover: complete visibility.
Site Inspection:
Old way: Inspection done. Photos taken, emailed, scattered. Back in office, someone tries to match them to locations. Inconsistent.
New way: Inspection logged live. Photos auto-linked to location and ITP requirement. System validates against criteria. Compliance verified at point of work.
Why Static Documents Fail
A static ITP can't track which tests you've completed, which acceptance criteria were verified, or how you've documented proof.
A live ITP system connects to actual workflows, tracks completion in real-time, flags gaps early, and creates auditable proof.
ITPs as Compliance Infrastructure
ISO 19650 requires continuous verification. Not end-of-project audits. Testing defined upfront, verified during delivery, results recorded in real-time.
Most organisations treat ITPs as a checkbox: "Create. File. Hope it's done. Scramble at handover."
That's not verification. That's document storage.
Live ITP tracking is what verification actually looks like.
This Isn't Theoretical
Teams are doing this right now. AtkinsRéalis, TRU, Cadeler, Drax. ITPs as data records, not documents. Tracked live. Testing verified in real-time. Evidence complete at handover.
Not someday. Not in a pilot. Now.
It's not an overnight change—it's an overnight solution. Move ITPs out of the CDE document store and into a live data system. Configure your ITP requirements. Teams start logging tests as data records. Real-time visibility on what's been tested and whether it meets acceptance criteria.
Ready to Make Your ITP's Live?
Book a demo to see live ITP tracking in action.