Book a demo
Login
In a major industrial project, the owner/operator typically sources equipment and components from hundreds of suppliers. Each is expected to deliver not just the physical equipment, but a complete package of technical documentation and data — datasheets, inspection certificates, operating manuals, drawings, spare parts lists, and more.
In practice, collecting this data completely and in a usable format is one of the most persistent challenges in project information management. The consequences extend well beyond the project itself: incomplete or inconsistent supplier data at handover becomes a long-term operational liability that costs far more to correct after commissioning than before it.
A supplier's primary obligation is to deliver equipment that meets the technical specification. Documentation and data are secondary deliverables, and the consequences of non-conforming data are typically borne by the owner — not the supplier. Without contractual enforcement and active tracking, supplier data quality defaults to whatever is easiest for the supplier to produce.
This misalignment of incentives is the root cause of most supplier data problems. It cannot be resolved by asking suppliers to do better — only by building data requirements into the contract and enforcing them systematically throughout the project.
Data requirements that are not specified in the purchase order cannot be enforced. If the owner's metadata standards, file format requirements, and naming conventions are communicated to suppliers after award, the supplier may already have generated documentation in an incompatible format — creating rework for both parties. In practice, many organisations only define their data requirements clearly enough to enforce them after experiencing significant problems on previous projects.
Each supplier has its own documentation system, naming conventions, and file structure. Without a defined submission interface, the owner receives data in dozens of incompatible formats that must be manually reconciled before they can be linked to the tag register and asset hierarchy. At scale, this manual reconciliation is simply not achievable within project timelines.
On a large project, supplier documentation may run to hundreds of thousands of individual files across hundreds of suppliers. Tracking submission status, review cycles, revision histories, and approval status manually — typically in spreadsheets — is unsustainable at this volume. The Worley team on the Jasmine project processed 26,900 unique supplier documents and 86,740 document revisions. At that scale, manual management is not an option.
If the tag used in the supplier's documentation does not match the tag in the owner's Master Tag Register, the document cannot be reliably linked to the correct asset record. Tag mismatches are among the most common causes of supplier documentation that is technically complete but operationally unusable — because it cannot be automatically linked to the right equipment at handover.
Supplier data problems that are not identified during the project compound at document handover. Gaps in supplier documentation discovered at mechanical completion are among the most expensive problems to resolve — the contractor may have demobilised, the leverage to demand corrections has evaporated, and the operator's systems cannot be populated until the gaps are filled.
Beyond the project, poor supplier data quality at handover directly affects asset information management throughout the operational life of the facility — driving maintenance inefficiencies, procurement delays, and reliability risks that persist for decades.
Every purchase order should specify the metadata requirements, file formats, naming conventions, and completeness standards that supplier documentation must meet. Acceptance of non-conforming documentation should be explicitly excluded. Requirements aligned with CFIHOS or ISO 15926 give both parties a neutral, standardised reference for what compliance means.
Rather than receiving supplier documentation by email or FTP, a structured submission portal normalises the submission process, enforces metadata requirements at the point of upload, and provides automatic tracking of submission status. This eliminates the manual coordination burden and creates a real-time view of completeness across the full supplier scope.
Acceptance of a supplier submission should require validation against defined completeness and quality criteria. Automated validation rules catch missing fields, incorrect file formats, and tag mismatches before they enter the document register. Data quality is most cost-effective to enforce at the point of entry.
Supplier data completeness should be tracked in real time against the full document register — not just at handover. This enables early identification of at-risk suppliers and gives project teams the time to resolve problems before they become handover blockers. The dashboards and notifications available in modern platforms make this real-time visibility achievable without dedicated reporting effort.
Supplier documentation that is stored without being linked to the correct tag and asset record has limited operational value. Building the linkage between supplier data and the Master Tag Register as submissions are received — rather than as a handover activity — ensures that the data is usable from the moment it arrives.
Sharecat provides a supplier information management capability built specifically for the challenges described above. Suppliers submit documentation directly through the platform, where it is automatically linked to the relevant tags, validated against defined requirements, and tracked against the full document register.
For project teams, this replaces the manual coordination burden of chasing suppliers and reconciling submissions with a governed, automated process. Submission status is visible in real time across all suppliers and all document types — so the project team always has an accurate picture of completeness.
For operators, supplier data arrives in a structured, traceable format linked to the asset hierarchy and ready for import into CMMS, ERP, and EAM systems. The integrations layer enables direct handover into operational systems without manual reconciliation.
The results on major projects are well documented. On the Jasmine project, Worley achieved a saving of £1.32 million in information management cost through the use of Sharecat — driven by the automation of high-volume, manual supplier data processes. On the BP Tangguh LNG expansion, a single Sharecat workspace served as the information backbone across seven EPC contractors and hundreds of suppliers through the full project lifecycle.
Data requirements should be defined before purchase orders are issued — ideally during the FEED phase when the document register, tag register, and metadata standards are being established. Requirements communicated after award are significantly harder to enforce and more likely to generate rework.
Supplier data gaps at handover are among the most expensive problems to resolve. The contractor may have demobilised, suppliers are no longer contractually obligated to respond, and every day of delay costs the operator. The only effective solution is continuous completeness tracking during the project, so gaps are identified and resolved while the project team is still mobilised and has contractual leverage.
If a supplier uses a different tag identifier than the one in the owner's Master Tag Register, their documentation cannot be automatically linked to the correct asset record. This means the documentation is technically delivered but operationally unusable without manual reconciliation — which at large project scale is extremely costly. Governed tag management throughout the project prevents this problem.
A supplier portal is a structured submission interface that gives suppliers a single, defined way to submit documentation against specific tags and requirements. It enforces metadata standards at the point of upload, automates status tracking, and provides the project team with real-time visibility of completeness. Sharecat's supplier portal is described in more detail on the Supplier Information Management solution page.
ISO
27001
Certified
