Ernest Hemingway liked to challenge guests to write a horror story in six words. For construction professionals, that might be an easy game. There is “Faulty fire system causes eight-year delay”, there is “Construction halted due to structural concerns”. And, of course, there is “Key information arrived too late.”
That last story is probably the most common story of all. In recent research by Hexagon, 74% of EPC executives say they see a "strong" or "severe" impact from delayed or outdated information on their operations, with a similar number seeing the effect of inaccurate or incomplete information (73%).
Many EPCs have tried to address this problem by adding more digital tools, only to see issues worsen. As the report notes, "the increase in digital tools adopted appears to be creating more work for teams and negatively impacting responses to key business challenges. For example, 63% of those with more tools than a year ago agree that their team spends too much time manually creating reports and consolidating data points. Similarly, 67% of those who have increased their tools cite projects running over budget as a challenge, compared with 55% of those who haven’t added more tools".
The problem: tools without continuity or interoperability
The problem, it seems, is not so much the number of tools as their lack of interoperability and the manual data wrangling that ensues. Three in four executives thus note that poor data integration and lack of connectivity between tools are having a negative effect on their organization.
These disjointed tools reflect and exacerbate disjointed processes. Large projects now run multiple data environments with a mix of models, drawings and point solutions. This can lead to three issues.
The first is the illusion of visibility, with different tools holding a partial picture of the situation: or example, the ERP, the construction scheduling tool, the warehouse management system and the local spreadsheets, all reflecting an incomplete picture of material availability.
The second is long waiting times and tasks that could be parallel-tracked but are not. Crews spend large parts of the week waiting for materials or instructions instead of doing work. Handoffs fail between trades, so successors remain idle while predecessors complete their tasks. Commissioning is treated as an afterthought and commissioning delays hold up revenue. And all these delays that occur when context readiness and evidence arrive late can rapidly compound.
Another issue is data standardization. Systems may show the same information but name it differently, which leaves data disconnected. Users often have to map fields by hand, which breaks continuity and slows the flow of information. This can result in inconsistent records, repeated rework down the line and delayed decisions across the project lifecycle.
AWP as the organizing framework
Advanced Work Packaging, or AWP, aims to solve this.
AWP is best understood as a comprehensive execution strategy that focuses on breaking down the project scope into manageable, well-defined packages of work to ensure that all necessary information, materials and resources are available at the point of execution when needed.
However, there is much more to it than just making tiny bundles of tasks. AWP unites engineering, procurement and construction into a single Path of Construction, clearly defining who releases what, to whom and by what date. This structure is critical because common chronic issues on site, like late drawings, out-of-sequence work, idle crews and missing materials, all trace back to poor visibility, weak handoffs and a lack of context. AWP provides the essential structure to eliminate those gaps.
Of course, connectivity sits at the centre. AWP does not replace design tools, procurement systems or site apps. It requires them to speak the same language. Tags and locations must match across models, drawings, materials and work orders. Work packages become the thread that pulls data from design, pushes demand to procurement and carry readiness and progress back to planning.
OnSite Visualize in Practice: Package, Federate, Automate
To turn AWP into execution, OnSite Visualize (formerly iConstruct PRO) is the tool of choice. This powerful tool sits inside the Navisworks environment and converts design models into models that construction teams can actually use.
How? OnSite Visualize reads the usual engineering formats, reorganizes them into structures that match the project’s Path of Construction and links directly to current databases without forcing new tools on the project.
Because everything is consolidated in one place, planners can test work sequences in the model before crews arrive on-site, maximizing the chances that issues can be caught early. Routine coordination tasks run on schedules and exports produce one clean IFC or DWG from the federated model rather than many separate files.
This single-model approach enhances quality and team productivity by eliminating many nonproductive and error-prone tasks. The result is lower costs and greater efficiency, but also happier and more productive teams.
Case Evidence: Tecnimont and Mercury
Let’s take two examples to see how that can work and the results that can be achieved.
Tecnimont, a major global contractor that builds some of the world's most complex plants and industrial sites, has leveraged AWP and OnSite Visualize to gain a clearer view of work fronts. The company had identified that its teams struggled with information management and devoted significant time and effort in generating reports and updating data.
By implementing AWP with OnSite Visualize, the teams were able to link engineering deliverables, material data and schedules in one model. The benefits of this connected approach could be felt throughout the project cycle: better work planning that eliminates guesswork, a clearer sense of priorities, effective preparation and delivery of digital work packages based on consistent data and a stronger ability to measure construction progress against the planned sequence. The company was able to reduce the time spent on nonproductive tasks such as data consolidation and free supervisors to focus on field activity.
Mercury, a European contractor with more than 30 years in semiconductor facilities, provides another example at the scale of some of the most complex and costly facilities in the world:, such as semiconductor fabs. For such a project, it sought a solution that would adapt to different projects, integrate with existing systems and align the product roadmap to its goals. Earlier tools limited automation, reporting and data extraction and multiple data sources made integration increasingly complex.
Mercury adopted OnSite Visualize PRO and MAX, combined it with the BIMflow automation tool and made the model the source for reportable data by bringing information from various origins into a unified, manageable platform. The team eliminated manual processes, strengthened model validation with fast, project‑specific reporting and achieved time and cost savings with increased project efficiency.
Getting results without a stack overhaul
These two examples show a strong advantage of this strategy: it builds on existing tools and past investments rather than starting a new enterprise software project from scratch.
The fix lies in continuity and context. AWP supplies the context and OnSite Visualize supplies continuity by binding model, metadata and outputs inside the stack you already run. This makes adoption particularly fast, with teams moving in weeks, not years.
And gains are significant. AWP drives a predictable flow of ready work and OnSite Visualize turns that flow into executable packages, federated and sectioned models and clean deliverables. In the field, this translates to crews receiving what they need on time and stakeholders being able to measure projects by package rather than guesswork. In short, it equips EPCs to forget about the six-word horror stories of the past and write success stories instead.