In multi-office firms delivering services in the built environment, this phrase surfaces more often than most people admit.
“That’s not how we do it in our office.”
It might come up when reviewing margin on a live project. It might surface while preparing the monthly board pack. It might relate to WIP, forecast, utilisation or fee position.
On its own, it sounds harmless, but when it appears regularly, it tells you something important.
It means the firm is not looking at one shared picture of performance. It is looking at versions of performance, shaped slightly differently by each office or team before the numbers reach leadership.
Most established engineering consultancies, quantity surveying firms and architectural studios already have systems in place. Time is logged. Projects are tracked. Revenue is forecast. Reports are produced.
The problem is rarely a lack of data, it is how consistently that data is entered, interpreted and relied upon across offices.
One office updates forecast weekly because that’s how they prefer to manage risk. Another updates at month-end. One project lead adjusts margin early if a fee feels tight. Another waits for something more concrete. Finance might export data and rebuild it in Excel before circulating it, just to be certain it stands up in the board meeting. Meanwhile, delivery teams sometimes keep their own trackers alongside the system because they trust what they can see directly.
None of this is irrational. It is how busy firms cope with pressure.
Over time, however, those small differences add up.
Nothing collapses overnight. You just find yourself spending more time explaining the numbers than acting on them.
Engineering and QS firms often feel this first as they open additional offices or introduce more management layers. Architectural practices experience it when studios become semi-autonomous. What worked when the firm was smaller or simpler starts to strain quietly in the background.
The consequence is not chaos. It is slower decisions, cautious conversations and less confidence in the numbers than anyone is comfortable admitting.
Four practical steps to regain clarity
Improving this does not automatically mean replacing your systems. It does mean tightening how they are used in real life.
1. Pay attention to where meetings slow down
During the next leadership meeting, notice when the discussion shifts from performance to clarification.
Where do people pause and say, “just to be clear…”?
Which figures prompt follow-up questions about how they were calculated?
Margin, WIP, forecast and utilisation are common areas. If those definitions vary even slightly between offices, the board is not looking at a single version of reality.
Clarity begins with agreeing what a number means before debating what to do about it.
2. Look for the shadow work
In established firms, shadow work hides in plain sight:
- Local spreadsheets.
- Parallel trackers.
- Finance exporting data “just to sense-check it”.
- Project leads keeping their own view of performance.
These habits do not appear because people enjoy extra work. They appear because something in the main system feels unclear, delayed or unreliable.
If shadow work is normal, it is worth asking why.
The goal is not to remove these tools aggressively. It is to reduce the need for them.
3. Align how and when forecasts move
Different offices often run at different speeds.
One team updates forecast weekly. Another does it only when prompted. Some adjust early for commercial risk. Others prefer to wait until something is formally agreed.
That variation may feel manageable locally, but it becomes problematic when leadership tries to compare performance across offices.
Agreeing when forecasts are reviewed, when risk is reflected and when performance is locked gives leadership a clearer, more consistent view of the firm.
4. Ask whether your board pack needs translation
This is the simplest test: If the first ten minutes of a board meeting are spent explaining how figures were derived, reconciling differences between offices or clarifying adjustments, then the system is not fully supporting the business.
A board pack should allow leadership to focus on what needs to change, not how the numbers were assembled.
When reporting consistently requires explanation, confidence starts to erode.
When systems stop keeping pace
Firms delivering engineering, quantity surveying and architectural services rarely struggle because their systems lack features. They struggle because those systems no longer reflect how the firm actually operates.
As firms take on more complex projects, open new offices or add management layers, the pressure on reporting increases.
The real test is not whether the system looks comprehensive. It is whether the people logging time, running projects, reviewing performance and leading the business can all rely on it without building their own workarounds.
That includes the architects, engineers and quantity surveyors completing timesheets and updating live projects, as well as finance teams preparing reports and directors making commercial decisions.
If different parts of the firm are quietly correcting or interpreting the system before trusting it, visibility is already compromised.
At that point, it is reasonable to question whether the current reporting setup is still fit for purpose.
Replacing or strengthening systems is not a sign something has gone wrong. For many established built environment firms, it is part of adapting to increased scale and complexity.
Fresh Projects was developed for this exact challenge. LiveSheets, its real-time visibility feature, gives delivery teams and finance a shared commercial view that updates continuously, working alongside existing accounting systems so reporting no longer depends on parallel reconciliation.
The aim is not more reports. It is fewer caveats and more confident decisions.
If this reflects your experience, we are hosting a live session on 10 March to explore how established firms are improving visibility across offices without introducing unnecessary complexity.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why do multi-office built environment firms struggle with reporting even when systems are already in place?
Because the issue is rarely the absence of software. It is inconsistency in how systems are used across offices and teams. Small variations in forecasting, margin adjustments and data entry reduce firm-wide clarity over time.
What is the earliest warning sign that reporting is becoming unreliable?
Repeated clarification in leadership meetings. If board packs regularly require explanation, adjustment or caveats, it often means the data is being interpreted differently before it reaches decision-makers.
Does this mean firms need to replace their core systems?
In some cases, yes. Process alignment can improve clarity temporarily. However, if manual reconciliation is routine and parallel trackers continue to multiply, that often indicates structural limitations. Re-evaluating the reporting environment may be necessary to restore confidence and timely decision-making.
How does this affect profitability in practice?
When performance issues are identified late, corrective action becomes harder. Earlier visibility allows firms to address margin pressure, resource strain or fee recovery concerns while projects are still recoverable.
Top Tip for Architectural Studios
Studios often value autonomy, particularly around how projects are tracked and reviewed. Ensure that studio-level flexibility does not result in studio-level reporting definitions. Agree centrally how margin, WIP and forecast are calculated and apply those standards consistently across studios.
Top Tip for Engineering Firms
Engineering consultancies frequently operate across disciplines and offices. Align when and how forecast adjustments are made. If one office reflects delivery risk early and another waits, leadership visibility will always lag reality.
Top Tip for Quantity Surveyors
QS firms depend on accurate cost tracking and fee recovery insight. If commercial managers maintain parallel trackers to validate system outputs, focus first on restoring trust in shared reporting before adding further reporting layers.