Is Per-User Construction Software Pricing Costing Your Project Too Much?

Construction has spent years talking about the importance of collaboration. We want contractors, consultants, subcontractors, clients and site teams working from the same information. We invest in construction management software to bring those people together. We talk about a single source of truth, real-time information and breaking down silos between project participants. Yet there is a contradiction in the way some construction software is priced:

▌ The more people you bring into the system, the more the system can cost.

At some point, we should ask whether that makes sense. This is not an argument that software should be free. Good construction software costs money to develop, maintain, secure and support, and providers are entitled to build sustainable businesses around their products. The more fundamental question is this:

▌ For software designed to enable collaboration, is charging for each person who collaborates the right commercial model?

THE COST OF A SOFTWARE SEAT IS NOT JUST THE LICENCE FEE

Per-user construction software pricing is easy to understand. A licence costs a set amount per user, per month or year. Ten users cost ten times the individual rate; 50 users cost considerably more; 100 users cost more again.

For some software, that model is entirely logical. If a specialist design package is used by five engineers, there may be little reason to license another 100 people who will never use it.

A construction management system is different because its value can increase as more of the project team participates. The project manager needs access. So do the site manager, contract administrator, engineer, quality team and safety team. Depending on the project, subcontractors, consultants, client representatives and other stakeholders may also benefit from direct access to the project record. This is where pricing becomes more than a procurement issue. It can start influencing behaviour.

When every additional user creates an additional cost, someone eventually has to ask:

▌ Does this person really need a licence?

That sounds like a reasonable cost-control question. But is it the right project-management question? Perhaps the better question is:

▌ Would giving this person direct access improve the flow, accuracy or timeliness of project information?

Those are not necessarily the same thing.

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN PROJECT-SYSTEM ACCESS IS RESTRICTED?

If someone cannot access the project system, the information usually still has to reach them. So we:

• export a PDF • email a report • download a spreadsheet • take a screenshot • forward a drawing • copy information into another application; or • rely on someone who attended a meeting to relay it afterwards. None of those actions is particularly significant on its own. Most construction professionals do them every day. The problem is what happens at scale.

A project may have hundreds of people, thousands of documents, tens of thousands of individual records and millions of decisions and data points across its lifecycle. Whenever current information leaves the controlled project environment as a separate email, spreadsheet, PDF or message, another version can exist.

Suddenly, the industry has recreated the very problem its digital construction platforms were intended to solve: a central project system surrounded by a decentralised network of information.

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN COLLABORATION BREAKS DOWN?

Without genuine collaboration, project teams retreat into silos. Contractors, consultants, subcontractors and clients maintain their own records, circulate different versions and make decisions from information that may already be incomplete or out of date. The project may appear connected because everyone receives emails and reports, but distribution is not the same as collaboration.

The consequences are familiar: duplicated data entry, conflicting drawings, missed handovers, slow approvals, unanswered questions, hidden safety and quality risks, and decisions made without the full picture. Responsibility becomes harder to trace. Teams spend more time proving what was sent and when than resolving the issue itself. Small misunderstandings become rework, delay, claims and disputes.

▌ WHEN PEOPLE CANNOT COLLABORATE IN THE SAME INFORMATION ENVIRONMENT, THE PROJECT PAYS THROUGH FRICTION, RISK AND LOST TRUST.

DISCONNECTED CONSTRUCTION INFORMATION HAS A REAL COST

This is not simply a technology argument.

In the 2018 Construction Disconnected study commissioned from FMI by PlanGrid, respondents attributed 48% of US construction rework to poor project data and miscommunication—an estimated US$31.3 billion in rework that year. The study also found that construction professionals spent 35% of their time on non-productive activities such as searching for project information, resolving conflict, and dealing with mistakes and rework. (Autodesk summary of the FMI–PlanGrid research — https://www.autodesk.com/blogs/construction/?p=13930)

Later Autodesk and FMI research estimated that bad data may have cost the global construction industry US$1.85 trillion in 2020. The researchers defined bad data as information that is inaccurate, incomplete, inaccessible, inconsistent or untimely. (Autodesk and FMI, Harnessing the Data Advantage in Construction — https://www.autodesk.com/blogs/construction/autodesk-fmi-study-global-construction-industry-data-strategies/)

Those findings do not prove that per-user software pricing causes construction rework. Pricing is only one of many factors affecting access, adoption and information quality.

They do, however, support an important question:

▌ If better access to shared information improves collaboration, why choose a commercial model that may discourage projects from giving people that access?

HOW QUICKLY CAN PER-USER CONSTRUCTION SOFTWARE COSTS GROW?

Consider a hypothetical project using software priced at US$40 per user per month: 10 users — US$400 per month / US$9,600 over two years. • 50 users — US$2,000 per month / US$48,000 over two years. • 100 users — US$4,000 per month / US$96,000 over two years. That pricing structure is realistic. At the time of publication, Fieldwire lists its Pro plan at US$39 per user per month when billed annually, with higher per-user prices for higher tiers. (View current Fieldwire pricing — https://www.fieldwire.com/pricing/)

Fieldwire is used here only as a transparent, publicly available example of per-user pricing—not as criticism of the product. There may be sound reasons for choosing it and accepting that model.

The important issue is what happens next. When a project wants to add another 20, 30 or 50 participants, does management add them because their participation would improve delivery? Or does somebody first calculate the extra licence cost?

If that second conversation occurs, the pricing model is influencing how collaboration is designed.

LOOK BEYOND SUBSCRIPTION FEES TO THE TOTAL COST OF COLLABORATION

Construction companies are very good at assessing direct costs. Software subscriptions appear neatly in a budget. Indirect costs are harder to see:

• What does it cost when a project administrator repeatedly exports information for people without access? • What is the cost of maintaining parallel spreadsheets? • What happens when somebody works from an outdated report or drawing? • How much management time goes into distributing information instead of managing it? • What is the impact when a subcontractor, consultant or supervisor sees an issue too late because they sit outside the information loop? These costs rarely appear under a budget heading called Software. They appear as administration, delay, rework, inefficiency—or simply the ordinary friction we have become accustomed to accepting on construction projects.

That is why comparing construction management systems solely by subscription price can mislead. A more useful measure is the total cost of getting the right project participants to use the system effectively.

WHY PROTRAC CMS USES FLAT-FEE PROJECT PRICING

When we developed the commercial model for ProTrac CMS, we made a deliberate decision:

▌ One flat fee per project. Unlimited users.

The reasoning was straightforward. If a project has 20 people who should be connected, add 20. If it has 100, add 100. If another subcontractor, supervisor, consultant or client representative would benefit from participating, the project should not have to consider the cost of another seat before giving them access. The software cost remains a project cost. The team decides who should participate based on the needs of the project rather than the licensing model.

That is particularly relevant in construction because projects are temporary organisations. Teams expand and contract. Subcontractors arrive and leave. Consultants become more or less involved at different stages. Client and contractor personnel change. The number of people who need information today may be completely different in six months.

A pricing model tied to the project rather than the number of users recognises that reality.

PRICING MODELS INFLUENCE PROJECT BEHAVIOUR

This debate is bigger than whether one software package costs more or less than another. Software pricing can influence the way a project uses technology. If the objective is widespread adoption, transparent communication and a common project record, it is worth asking whether the commercial model encourages those behaviours.

Per-user pricing is not inherently wrong. For some software and organisations, it may be entirely appropriate. But for a system intended to become the shared operational environment for a construction project, there is a strong argument for separating the cost of the software from the number of people collaborating through it.

Construction already struggles with fragmented information. ProTrac is built on the principle that collaboration should make delivery easier—not become another source of friction. But collaboration should not be painful, and it dies when the cost rises with every person invited into the system.

▌ ONE PROJECT. ONE FLAT FEE. UNLIMITED USERS.

The aim is simple: let the right people collaborate freely without watching the licence count climb. The measure of a construction management system should not be how few licences a project can get away with. It should be how effectively the system connects the people responsible for delivering the project.

WHAT IS YOUR EXPERIENCE?

▌ Has per-user pricing ever affected who receives access to your construction project systems?

Perhaps your team has limited licences, circulated exported reports, maintained parallel spreadsheets or found a workaround that created more administration. Or perhaps per-user pricing works well for your projects.

Share a real example in the comments—without naming a vendor if you would prefer not to. Who was left outside the system, what workaround did the team use, and what did it cost in time or risk?

Different views are welcome. The bigger question is worth debating:

▌ Should construction projects have to pay for collaboration by the person?

Learn more about ProTrac CMS — https://protrac.site/ or email contact@protrac.site. ProTrac CMS — Construction Management. Simplified.