Essential checks for managing changes to deliverables, responsibilities and reporting across project teams.
Ahead of a weekly design coordination meeting, a structural drawing package has been delayed by two weeks, an MEP submission has been revised, and another package is still awaiting acceptance.
These are familiar situations on major construction and infrastructure projects, but their implications aren't always immediately visible when updates are spread across separate TIDPs, spreadsheets, whiteboards and project systems.
Keeping the MIDP accurate is a shared effort. Delivery teams play an important role in reporting progress and communicating changes, while those coordinating the plan assess the impact across disciplines and upcoming commitments.
Is your MIDP telling the full story?
Individual task teams may each have an accurate view of their own progress, but those updates still need to add up to a reliable picture across the project. The MIDP review is where that wider position comes together, providing the basis for reporting to clients and agreeing the next delivery commitments.
Here are five checks to consider before your next review.
01. Record what's changed, not just the new date
When a task team revises its TIDP, replacing the previous delivery date can mean losing valuable context.
Has the design package been delayed because another discipline hasn't completed its work? Has the scope changed? Is a revised submission needed following client feedback?
Retaining the original planned date alongside the latest forecast and the reason for the change helps distinguish agreed revisions from outstanding commitments. It also provides a record of how delivery dates have evolved, making repeated movement against the programme easier to identify.
02. Check ownership when delivery commitments change
Responsibility for a deliverable may be agreed at the outset, but that position can change as designs develop, packages are reallocated or additional delivery partners become involved.
For example, when a design package is divided between specialist teams, the original allocation of responsibilities may no longer reflect who is producing each submission or progressing outstanding actions.
Check that the relevant TIDPs and wider MIDP reflect these changes, including who is responsible for the next action and which team is providing progress updates. This is especially relevant where work passes between organisations and responsibilities need to be coordinated across the same delivery milestone.
03. Distinguish between issued and accepted
A drawing package can meet its planned submission date while technical comments remain unresolved or formal acceptance is outstanding.
If reporting treats the issue date as completion, the remaining review activity may be missing from the position presented at a project meeting.
Check that the status recorded against each submission reflects its position within the agreed review and acceptance process. Packages returned for amendment or awaiting approval may have implications for milestone readiness, even where the original submission was made on schedule.
04. Review the impact on related deliverables
A delayed structural submission may affect the information available to MEP designers, potentially changing their planned outputs or review dates. Revised client requirements can also introduce additional work across several disciplines.
Consider which other TIDPs, dependencies and milestones are affected when a package changes, including whether the existing delivery sequence remains achievable.
Where design decisions or scope have evolved, review whether the planned outputs still reflect the latest agreed project requirements.
05. Focus the review on decisions
On a large infrastructure programme, the MIDP may contain hundreds or thousands of entries. Reproducing the entire plan in a progress report can make it harder to identify which issues require attention.
A more focused review concentrates on exceptions since the previous update, separating changes that have already been agreed from issues awaiting a decision or action from another organisation.
For design managers, project controls teams and delivery leads, the outcome should be a defined set of priorities, responsibilities and next actions that can be reflected back into the delivery plan.
Managing information delivery without rebuilding the report
Client questions rarely arrive neatly timed with the next scheduled review. A delivery lead may be asked for the current position on a particular design package, confirmation of an outstanding approval or an update against an upcoming milestone.
Access to the latest recorded delivery position makes those conversations easier to manage, without having to reconstruct the answer from spreadsheets and individual team updates.
Keeping the MIDP current with eviFile
These checks are easier to carry out when the delivery data behind them sits in one place.
eviFile’s ISO 19650 MIDP/TIDP module, within our Data Governance solutions, lets task teams record changes to their own deliverables while those coordinating the plan see the effect across the project, whether that is a delayed structural package, a revised MEP submission or an approval that is still outstanding.
Because everyone works from the same delivery data, project teams can:
-
Reduce duplication: Enter delivery data once and use it across planning and reporting.
-
See progress at a glance: Open dashboards in a single click to review delivery status and outstanding actions.
-
Respond to client queries faster: Check the latest position of individual deliverables, submissions and approvals against the agreed plan.
For contractors and consultancies coordinating multiple task teams, this connects individual delivery commitments with project-wide reporting, so the latest position is available for project reviews and ongoing decisions.
