During our recent Fresh Projects webinar exploring reporting confidence in architecture, engineering and built environment firms, one theme surfaced repeatedly.
Most practices already have reporting systems in place. They track project performance, monitor utilisation and review financial results regularly, so in theory the infrastructure required for informed decision making already exists.
Yet leadership teams still find themselves pausing in meetings to ask a familiar question about the numbers in front of them.
Are we comfortable with these figures?
The question itself is usually asked calmly, but the moment it appears the discussion often changes direction. Instead of focusing on the decision that needs to be made, the conversation shifts towards understanding how the numbers were produced and whether everyone in the room interprets them in the same way.
That tension between having information and trusting it enough to act framed the discussion between Fresh Projects CEO Simon Berry and panelists Ryan Harborth (Bloc Architects), J-D Voigt (Plantech Engineers) and Kim Murray (SOLID Engineering).
Between them they represent architecture, engineering and finance perspectives inside real practices, and the situations they described will sound familiar to many firms.
The challenge rarely comes from a lack of reporting tools. In most cases the difficulty begins once a practice grows and the operational complexity of the business increases.
When reporting starts to drift
Reporting inside a practice should be straightforward in principle. People record their activity, the system produces the reports and leadership uses those reports to guide decisions about the business.
However, once a firm grows beyond a certain size that tidy sequence rarely holds together.
Project leaders often keep their own spreadsheets because they want to track details that the system does not present clearly enough. Finance teams maintain adjustment sheets so they can reconcile numbers before reports circulate. Different offices gradually develop their own habits around updating information.
None of these behaviours normally appear because people distrust the system entirely. In most cases they appear because teams want to feel confident in the numbers before those numbers shape a decision.
Over time those parallel processes create a new difficulty.
The official report still exists.
However, several unofficial versions usually exist alongside it.
Sooner or later someone in the room starts comparing them.
When reporting moves slower than projects
During the webinar Simon described a reporting cycle that many firms will recognise.
At the end of each month teams spend several days assembling the numbers. Finance consolidates the information, distributes the reports and then receives a series of replies questioning whether certain figures look correct.
The reports return with comments. Adjustments are made and a revised version circulates again.
By the time everyone agrees that the numbers are accurate enough to discuss, the projects themselves have already moved forward.
Simon described the underlying issue directly during the session:
“Leadership teams still sit in meetings and they wonder are these numbers actually right.”
That delay matters.
Projects in architecture, engineering and consultancy environments evolve continuously. Staffing levels shift, scopes expand and delivery schedules change long before month end reporting cycles catch up.
When reliable insight arrives too late, the opportunity to influence the outcome has often already passed.
Three viewpoints from inside practice
One of the most useful parts of the webinar came from hearing how these reporting challenges appear in different parts of a firm.
Finance: confidence in the numbers
Kim Murray, Finance Manager at SOLID Engineering, described the position finance teams often occupy inside a growing consultancy.
Finance is expected to present a clear picture of the firm’s performance, yet that clarity depends on information flowing consistently from projects, timesheets and delivery teams. When those inputs arrive late or require adjustment, the responsibility to reconcile them usually sits with finance.
As Kim explained during the discussion:
“It’s been something that isn’t always easy to do, given that you are relying on project managers and individuals inputting data.”
Live visibility does not remove the need for oversight, but it significantly reduces the amount of reconstruction required before numbers can be shared with leadership.
Once that reconstruction disappears, reporting conversations begin to change. The discussion moves away from verifying the numbers and towards understanding what those numbers mean for the business.
Engineering: understanding how resources are really being used
From an engineering perspective, J-D Voigt explained how reporting directly affects resource planning.
His team holds regular reviews to understand how engineers are distributed across projects. In the past those meetings required pulling together information from several sources before the discussion could begin.
Now the preparation is much lighter because the team can review live project activity beforehand.
As J-D explained during the webinar:
“When we meet with our engineering team we can quickly get a feel for how busy that resource is, whether they are overworked or underworked.”
Instead of spending the meeting reconstructing the picture, the discussion can focus on how the work should be redistributed.
That change might appear small, but it significantly improves the quality of those planning conversations.
Architecture: spotting pressure earlier
Ryan Harborth from Bloc Architects described how reporting affects project delivery in architectural practices.
Many projects run across long timelines and multiple stages. Commercial performance often depends on noticing small signals early, such as when scope begins stretching, when disbursements require closer tracking or when stage allocations no longer reflect the work actually taking place.
Ryan summarised the challenge clearly during the panel discussion:
“The data has always been there, but it’s been more difficult to process and filter the things we want to see.”
When reporting becomes easier to interpret while projects are still moving, those early signals become easier to spot and address before they grow into larger commercial issues.
Why spreadsheets refuse to disappear
Another theme that surfaced repeatedly during the discussion was the continued role spreadsheets play inside professional services firms.
For years the industry conversation has framed spreadsheets as something software should eventually eliminate.
In practice they persist for a reason.
Architects, engineers and finance teams are comfortable analysing numbers in spreadsheet form because it allows them to filter information, test scenarios and reshape reports quickly without waiting for someone else to build a dashboard.
That flexibility is valuable.
The difficulty appears when those spreadsheets become detached from the system where the underlying data lives. Once that separation occurs, manual rebuilding begins and confidence in the numbers gradually weakens.
Where LiveSheets fits in
Rather than trying to remove spreadsheets from the workflow altogether, Fresh Projects approached the problem from a different direction.
The intention was not to introduce another reporting layer, but to connect project, financial and operational data in a way that reflects how architecture and engineering teams already work.
LiveSheets, a feature within Fresh Projects, connects spreadsheet style analysis directly to the live data inside the platform.
Teams can still examine information in familiar spreadsheet formats, yet the numbers behind those reports update directly from the system itself.
The spreadsheet remains flexible while the data remains live, which means everyone is looking at the same underlying information.
When that happens the tone of reporting conversations changes. Meetings no longer revolve around whether the numbers are correct and can instead focus on the decisions that need to follow.
Practical ways to improve reporting confidence
The webinar surfaced several practical lessons for firms experiencing similar reporting friction.
Spot issues while projects are still moving
Reporting becomes more valuable when it reflects what is happening now rather than what happened several weeks ago. Bringing visibility closer to live project activity allows teams to respond while outcomes are still changeable.
Reduce the need for parallel trackers
When teams maintain separate versions of the same information, disagreements become inevitable. Creating a single environment where operational data and financial insight connect reduces the need for side spreadsheets and reconciliation exercises.
Let teams analyse data in ways they understand
Professionals in architecture and engineering practices often prefer exploring information in spreadsheet form. Allowing that flexibility while ensuring the data remains live can improve engagement with reporting rather than discourage it. Tools such as LiveSheets make this possible by connecting spreadsheet analysis directly to operational project data.
Keep leadership meetings focused on decisions
If leadership discussions consistently begin with questions about whether the numbers are correct, the reporting process itself may be slowing the business down. When confidence in the data improves, meetings naturally shift towards deciding what to do next.
A quieter shift in how firms operate
What emerged most clearly from the webinar was not a demand for additional dashboards or more layers of reporting.
Most established firms already have those tools.
What they are looking for is confidence in the numbers while the work is still unfolding.
Simon Berry summarised the shift in thinking clearly during the session. The aim is to move conversations away from the recurring question of whether the data is accurate and towards a more useful discussion about what should happen next.
Inside growing architecture and engineering practices that shift often marks the moment when reporting begins to deliver its real value.