DVA Discovery · DVA Operations Monitor
Your people already know where the work gets stuck.
Instead of a consultant forming a view from a few hours of interviews, short AI-led check-ins with each role build a continuing picture of how work really happens, where it breaks down and what to measure. Discovery is the first 30 days: a study of where your organisation stands, ending in a report and a recommended next step.
01Continuous listening
A snapshot fades. A conversation keeps going.
A one-off review sees the organisation once. Short, regular check-ins with every role keep the picture current, and show what changed after each improvement.
Consultant reviewA round of interviews, then a report
One snapshot. After that, the picture is assumed.
DVA Operations MonitorShort check-ins from every role, all the way through
A picture that keeps updating, measured before and after every change.
02Conversations by role
Every role sees a different part of the problem.
Each check-in draws about four questions from DVA's governed question bank, anchored to a recent piece of work, with at most one follow-up. Choose a role to see how one conversation becomes structured evidence.
- DVA check-in G01
Which single recurring workflow would make the biggest difference if it were more predictable, and what decision would this assessment change?
- Director
Where submission coordination becomes hard to predict. We want to understand it; we have not concluded that performance is poor.
- DVA check-in G04
Which roles perform or review this work, including occasional contributors?
- Director
The project manager, engineer, document controller and procurement team all touch the hand-off.
- DVA check-in G05
What would you consider meaningful improvement, beyond working faster, for example quality, rework, timeliness or auditability?
- Director
Keeping approval quality and reducing avoidable rework, not just shortening elapsed time.
- DVA check-in G06
What other changes are underway that could influence these results?
- Director
A new project package and a supplier change, so later comparisons will need that context.
What the check-in records
- Decision scopeSubmission coordinationAgreed scope
- Roles to includePM, engineer, document controller, procurementCheck against role list
- OutcomesApproval quality and rework, not speed aloneAgreed measures
- Concurrent changesNew package; supplier changeLogged for comparison
- DVA check-in P01
Think of the most recent completed submission. What triggered it, what happened next, and how was it closed?
- Project manager
Submission S-014 arrived, went to engineering review, and was returned once before hand-off.
- DVA check-in P02
Which handoffs required a decision or another person's input?
- Project manager
The engineer needed a supplier clarification before the review could continue.
- DVA check-in P04
How did this case differ from a typical uncomplicated case?
- Project manager
The supplier attachment was incomplete. A routine submission follows the normal path.
- DVA check-in P05
Which steps are already supported by software, and where is the official record kept?
- Project manager
The submission register is the administrative record; the technical evidence sits in the project folder.
What the check-in records
- CaseS-014, returned onceSelf-reported
- Hand-offReview waits on a supplier clarificationCandidate, needs review
- Exception vs normalIncomplete supplier attachmentSelf-reported
- System of recordRegister, plus the project folderNeeds a record
- DVA check-in E01
Please identify the latest drawing/RFI revision case you personally worked on, including the case or drawing number.
- Project engineer
Submission S-014, revision R2.
- DVA check-in E02
What exact technical activity did you perform, and what was the next handoff?
- Project engineer
I checked the technical attachment and passed the clarification back to the project manager.
- DVA check-in E04
Did you repeat work that had previously been completed? Which version and what caused repetition, if known?
- Project engineer
Some checking was repeated after the supplier clarified the attachment, but the cause needs the records checked.
- DVA check-in Follow-up
What record or another perspective could help check that account, and what remains uncertain?
- Project engineer
The submission register and the clarification record could confirm the sequence. They cannot verify my remembered effort.
What the check-in records
- CaseS-014, revision R2Self-reported
- Activity and hand-offAttachment check, back to the PMSelf-reported
- ReworkRepeated checking; cause not yet confirmedCandidate, needs review
- EvidenceRegister and clarification record; effort cannot be verifiedNeeds a record
- DVA check-in R01
Walk through the last purchase or approval request from complete submission to final approval.
- Procurement manager
Purchase request, then approval, then delivery coordination.
- DVA check-in R03
Which systems and email attachments must be reconciled manually?
- Procurement manager
We reconcile the purchase system export with email attachments before confirming a request is complete.
- DVA check-in R04
What portion of processing is active work versus waiting for signoff?
- Procurement manager
Checking and waiting for approval are different. I would not count the waiting as labour.
- DVA check-in R05
How does project and request complexity affect turnaround times?
- Procurement manager
Urgent substitutions and incomplete specifications make requests harder to compare.
What the check-in records
- SequenceRequest, approval, delivery coordinationSelf-reported
- Manual reconciliationSystem export against email attachmentsGap found
- Active vs waitingKept apart; waiting is not counted as labourMeasurement rule
- ComparabilityUrgent substitutions, incomplete specificationsLogged for comparison
- DVA check-in FIN-01
Which finance-related handoff in this project affects coordination, without sharing confidential payment details?
- Finance manager
There is a payment-approval dependency. Amounts and vendor terms stay private.
- DVA check-in FIN-02
Which non-sensitive record type could show that an approval step occurred?
- Finance manager
A redacted approval-status record.
- DVA check-in FIN-03
What ordinary approval path should a researcher understand before examining an exception?
- Finance manager
Request, review, approval, then a recorded status update.
- DVA check-in FIN-04
What should remain private or excluded from any organisation-level research signal?
- Finance manager
Amounts, payroll, vendor terms and any reading of individual performance.
What the check-in records
- DependencyPayment approval affects coordinationSelf-reported
- EvidenceRedacted approval-status recordNeeds a record
- Normal pathRequest, review, approval, status updateSelf-reported
- Privacy boundaryAmounts, payroll, vendor termsKept private
Weeks later, at T1 and T2
The measurement questions are asked again word for word, so results stay comparable. New questions check what changed around them.
- E07
Since our last conversation, do you want to correct or qualify anything in that account?
Corrections are added as a new version. The original answer is never overwritten.
- P06
What was changed recently, and was it adopted consistently across sites?
Whether a change was actually adopted, and how evenly.
- S06
If this process changed, what work might become easier or more difficult?
Side effects, good and bad, not just the intended gain.
- I06
Which recent system rollout changed record coverage even if the underlying workflow did not change?
Whether a number moved because the records changed rather than the work.
Between roles
Procurement and the project manager both described a supplier clarification. A reviewer turned that into one question for the engineer:
A reviewed candidate dependency may connect supplier clarification to submission sequencing.
No one's words, and no financial detail, are passed between roles. The signal expires unless renewed.
Sample check-ins: questions from DVA's governed question bank, with sample answers. Check-ins run by voice or chat.
03From voices to measures
Many voices, one governed picture.
Answers are organised by the same governance and policy structure the company runs on, so what people know becomes knowledge the company keeps, and gaps become things it can measure.
- 01
Check-ins by role
Short, voluntary conversations with the people who do the work, repeated over time.
- 02
Governance and policy structure
Each answer is placed against the roles, workflows, records and permissions it belongs to.
- 03
Organisational knowledge base
Kept, versioned and correctable, so knowledge stays with the company when people move on.
- 04
Measures and gaps
A baseline where records support one. Where they don't, the missing record is named.
Findings go back to the teams that raised them. The check-in is also a feedback channel: the front line can flag gaps directly, because they see them first.
Voluntary and short
About 10 to 15 minutes and four questions, by voice or chat. Anyone can skip, correct or stop.
Private by default
Raw answers are not shown to line managers. Management sees patterns across roles, not individuals.
Never a performance review
It measures workflows, hand-offs and records, not people.
04The first 30 days, and after
Thirty days to a baseline. Then it keeps going.
The first 30 days establish T0. After that the monitor keeps listening, and re-measures with the same definitions after every agreed change. Nothing is measured until the people involved have agreed what counts.
Scope and authorise
Days 1–7
- What happens
- Choose one workflow and the decision it feeds. Agree who takes part and which records may be opened.
- Who takes part
- A director or operations lead, and the owner of the workflow.
- By the end of the week
- An agreed scope, and written permission for each record source.
Listen and structure
Days 8–15
- What happens
- Short conversations about recent events, normal cases and exceptions. What is reported, observed and still unknown is kept apart.
- Who takes part
- Project managers, engineers, coordinators, commercial or site staff.
- By the end of the week
- A map of how the workflow really runs.
Check and assess
Days 16–23
- What happens
- Selected records (revisions, RFIs, exports) are reconciled against what people described.
- Who takes part
- The workflow owner reviews what the records show.
- By the end of the week
- A baseline where the records support one. Where they do not, the gap is named, with the record it needs.
The T0 report
Days 24–30
- What happens
- Management receives the Discovery report: the T0 baseline, the gaps found, your digital maturity and the recommended next step.
- Who takes part
- Directors and the workflow owner.
- By the end of the week
- A recommended starting point: Foundation, Connect or Intelligence, or a process change with no new software.
Monitoring continues
Day 31 onwards
- What happens
- Check-ins carry on. When a change is agreed, T1 and T2 are measured with exactly the same definitions as T0, and the report is re-issued each period.
- Who takes part
- The same roles, plus the owner of each change.
- Each period
- What changed, what did not, and which records are still missing. The report is re-issued, and the next step reviewed.
Who it suits
Specialist and main contractors, engineering consultants and architectural practices.
What you control
Who takes part, what is accessed and for how long. Participants can correct their own accounts.
What it is not
Not a company score, an employee assessment or a promise of savings.
05DVA Operations Monitor
Understand how your business operates. Measure what matters. Improve with evidence.
Conversations and operational records show how work really happens across teams, projects and systems: where it breaks down, and what is worth measuring.
T0 baseline T1 after a change 0 No records · 1 Self-reported · 2 Partial records · 3 Record-corroborated
T0 · Partial records→T1 · Record-corroborated
Candidate KPIs
MEP-OUT-HR-001Accepted outputs per attributable hourMEP-EFF-002Active versus waiting time
Gap found
Site crews’ hours are not recorded against work packages.
Records needed
RFI register; role-hours ledger
T0 · Partial records→T1 · Partial records
Candidate KPIs
FLOW-CYCLE-003Cycle time and hand-off latencyFLOW-VAR-005Variation in cycle time
Gap found
No timestamp when a submission passes from PM to engineer.
Records needed
Submission register events
T0 · Self-reported only→T1 · Partial records
Candidate KPIs
QUAL-FPA-006First-pass acceptanceREWORK-007Reopened or superseded work
Gap found
Returned submissions carry no reason code.
Records needed
Review comments; return log
T0 · Self-reported only→T1 · Partial records
Candidate KPIs
INFO-COORD-008Complete submissions and issue closure
Gap found
“Closed” RFIs are not always accepted answers.
Records needed
RFI close-out criteria
T0 · No records→T1 · Self-reported only
Candidate KPIs
PLAN-PPC-004Planned tasks completed against plan
Gap found
Weekly lookahead plans are overwritten, not versioned.
Records needed
Versioned lookahead plans
T0 · Partial records→T1 · Record-corroborated
Candidate KPIs
INFO-COORD-008Revision control and source of truth
Gap found
Superseded drawings remain in the site folder.
Records needed
CDE status log
T0 · Self-reported only→T1 · Partial records
Candidate KPIs
ADOPT-011Use, coverage and fidelity of digital workflows
Gap found
Purchase export reconciled by hand against email.
Records needed
System usage logs; training records
T0 · Self-reported only→T1 · Self-reported only
Candidate KPIs
WORK-LOAD-009Workload and interruption burden, by role group
Gap found
Crew allocation lives in personal spreadsheets.
Records needed
Roster exports
T0 · No records→T1 · Self-reported only
Candidate KPIs
SAFE-013Near-miss reporting and corrective closurePSY-SAFE-010Speak-up climate, role-group level only
Gap found
Needs safety-authority approval before any data is used.
Records needed
Approved safety records
T0 · No records→T1 · No records
Candidate KPIs
SUST-014Material intensity and wasteCOMM-012Variation response reliability
Gap found
No material or variation records in scope yet.
Records needed
Material and variation registers
Each dimension shows how far the evidence goes, not a performance score. A dimension becomes measurable once its records exist and its KPI definitions are approved.
06The Discovery report
Where you stand, and where to start.
At day 30 the Operations Monitor produces the first report: findings, bottlenecks, evidence gaps, digital maturity and the recommended next step. It is re-issued at T1 and T2 as monitoring continues.
Discovery findings
14 findings · 5 roles
- GapDrawing revisions reach site after work starts
- GapPurchase export reconciled by hand against email
- Candidate"Closed" RFIs are not always accepted
Bottleneck categories
Evidence availability
- Productivity
- Cycle time
- Quality
- Coordination
- Planning
- Documents
- Digital / IDD
- Workforce
- Safety
- Cost and waste
Records available Partial Missing
Digital workflow and IDD gaps
- CDE and revision controlPartial
- Digital RFIs and submissionsIn place
- BIM-based takeoffMissing
- Digital schedulingPartial
KPI families by role
- EngineerOutput per hour · rework
- Project managerCycle time · hand-off latency
- ProcurementApproval cycle · completeness
- SitePlan reliability
T0 · T1 · T2
Sample measure per period
Intervention history
- 15 NovControlled revision-register hand-off · proposed
- 3 DecRole-complete effort ledger · in progress
Evidence provenance and confidence
Record-corroborated 62% Self-reported 30% Conflicted 8%
Digital maturity and next step
Demo dashboard with sample values. DVA walks you through the report and scopes the recommended next step with you.