Competitive analysis
Buildsoft
From their website: “ Buildsoft specialises in takeoff software, construction estimating software,
preparation of bill of quantities, electronic takeoff as well as hard copy takeoff through the use of
digitizers. Buildsoft can assist you enhance your estimating skills by introducing you to innovative
ways to speed up your takeoff whilst also saving you time and money in the preparation of the bill of
quantities and throughout the estimating process. Our advanced takeoff and estimating software
tools are used worldwide and are industry standard in Australia. If you need to estimate or take off
quantities, then Buildsoft's estimating & take-off software is the solution.”
Buildsoft is widely accepted as being the market leader in QS (Quantity surveying) Software. The
below screens start with the older version of buildsoft and the final screen has the newer version of
takeoff.
Buildsoft, at first glance, is a very basic looking application. It appears that very little thought has
gone into usability or user experience. The interface has simmiliarities to Microsoft excel / office
from the late 1990’s. Large dialogue box’s appear as you use the system. The buttons are large,
indifferent and unremarkable and scattered across the application. Some attempts at grouping can
be displayed (such as copy, delete, backup, restore and rename) but these are not wholly logical
groupings (will you really restore as often as you would copy?). But this convention seems lost when
other buttons are considered. Markup and Floor area are placed nearby, but create and open are
given precedence in another section. Labels are clear and it is obvious what information should be
entered but not immediately clear which informatio is “required”. Continuing with convention based
confounds, there does not appear to be progression e.g. back, next, forward etc. likewise there does
not appear to be options for submit, enter, save, pause, complete etc.
Figure 1, Early Buildsoft application
The output below presents the user with quite a lot of information. This report shows the cost
estimates for each stage.
Figure 2 – Buildsoft summary screen
The below screen shows the latest version of buildsoft which is integrated with drawings to develop
estimates based on these drawings. As you can see the interface is still very tabular based and user
feedback suggests that it is still based on earlier versions e.g. Earlier excel interface paradigms.
Figure 3 – Buildsoft Takeoff 2
User feedback
The below is some direct user feedback taken from some users of the product.
“We purchased Buildsoft in July and still don't have it totally up and running. We have
created our jobs and schedules and love that feature but are generally not thrilled with
the programs interface and usability.”
“I do the bookkeeping, A/P, Payroll, Taxes, and A/R as well as job costing but have
continued to double enter everything in Quickbooks because I can get access to all my
info in a second. I haven't learned how to use all these features in Buildsoft yet but am
working on it.”
“I am afraid that I am going to lose control because I can't use it the same way I use QB.”
“I guess my question is, is Buildsoft really worth putting up with? Are the capabilities
worth the hassle of the program's clunkiness? “
“I used Buildsoft from about 1994-2006 and know the software well. In the early-mid
90’s it was one of the best, but it just didn’t keep up the times and very few changes or
upgrades were ever made. One of its biggest claims was the “integration”, which you
mentioned. In hindsight I think it was more of one software trying to do too much and
therefore not doing any one thing that well. The accounting is pretty good, the job
costing is fair, the estimating/take-off is not very good, the scheduling is only average at
best, in my opinion. I think the “integration” claim is vastly over rated.”
“the link/interface hasn't been changed in 15 years or more. I'm not sure it was ever
particularly useful, there were so few people trying it back when BuildSoft was a
happening product. Plus it's a one-way push, not a two-way integration. And I'm not
even sure it captures all the fields currently in SoftList. “
Summary
Buildsoft is a feature rich application that has very poor usability. It could be argued that as it is
number one in its industry its user's do not have many choices for alternatives so they must force
themselves to use it. Clearly this is furstrating to users but the tactic seems to effective. This makes
this particular part of Competitive analysis and User research simplified as there are many simple
steps to take to make any software benefit from a User centered design approach. As other
competitors do not have good usable products, there will be technicaly no competitors in that space
and any developed software will have an immediate advantage.
iQuick estimator
iQuick Estimator is a mobile app available for download from Apple Appstore for approx 5 Euro. It
claims to be the most complete carpentry tool in the App store. iQuick estimator can estimate 6
difference trades of construction. These trades are: Flooring, Drywall, Paint, Concrete, Roofing and
Framing. The App claims to be so complete it will do the bidding for you and email all of these totals
to yourself or the client. The slogan is “There is no need for expensive estimating software
anymore!”
From the product website “iQuick estimator will calculate the number of Drywall boards needed for
a job or, -Number of Cans of Paint needed -Number of Roofing Squares & Bundles -Number of yards
of Concrete -Labor & Material Cost -Profit and Overhead -Overages”
However the app has a caveat “This App is intended for basic estimating.”
The below displays the main menu of the app. It is straightforward and simple interface. It gives
immediate options to the user and has a simple navigation. However certain things are missing like a
settings menu or help menu. If a user is unclear about the app there is no where to seek assistance.
Figure 4 – Main menu
Figure 5 – Flooring Estimate
The second image is of a main page of the flooring estimate section. In contrast this page is
extremely complex in terms of interaction. There is quite a lot of information to comprehend and it
is not initially clear which sections require the users input... or do all of them? Input on this page
could be difficult as the targets are very small. Likewise on a building site such input could be more
troublesome. Navigation from this screen is slightly better with a back and forward (totals) button.
Yet again there does not appear to be any help or settings options.
Figure 6 – Totals page
The final screen, displayed above, gives the user the totals based on the dimension that they entered
on the previous page. This is a short and sussinct list, it is clearly a very simle type of estimate
software but it gives a good summary that could be used on a mobile device.
User feedback
“The app believes rooms are 2d, I gotta trick the app to realise they are 3d.. can only do
one wall at a time, not whole room.”
“The number of rooms etc are limited.”
“Can email client spec but cannot control content of email, client can see my profit??”
“Simple, easy to use and nifty”
“Seems good for diy market but not accurate enough for contractors”
“Unable to alter spec e.g. some paints have more coverage than others....”
Summary
iQuick Estimator gives a really good tentative step into where them mobile QS apps can go. It has a
simple and clean relatively easy to use interface but lacks functionality and depth of service. User
feedback clearly demonstrated that they required more functionality but it can be argued that that
is not the purpose of this application e.g. It is a “quick” estimator, a more through estimator should
most likely be undertaken. An interesting obsertvation is the idea of sending your client a summary
diretly from the application. For future applicaitons that may be developed this may not be an issue
but it could be worthwhile to think about outputs from this software and whom or what could utilise
them. The strongest point to this application is simplicity. From the main menu there is only one
screen for the user to enter data and then they are presented with the information they require e.g.
The estimate. Future applications should follow this model, traditionally found with users of mobile
devices, of short interactions.
Linked in
LinkedIn is a social network for business professionals. During the interview stages of the user
research Linkedin appeared as being in the top 3 apps that the interviewee's used (granted only one
interviewee used the mobile version). In terms of competitive analysis Linkedin can offer insight in to
interaction styles and data retrieving. Linked in allows you to maintain a profile and also to access
others profiles. Search results can come from your network or from outside of your network.
Similiarily search results for a potential QS app can come from your network of previous and trusted
suppliers and also from new and untrusted suppliers. There is also scope to follow social network
guidlines for trust by identifing suppliers that may be unused by you, but perhaps used by your
suppliers. Linkedin use “intelligent” reccomender systems to not only display the correct information
for your but also what is relevent. Feedback from the interviewee's also suggested that it is not as
straightforward as a price vs quality equation. Who the supplier is and the individuals relationship to
them is an important element and one that should be adopted in future application.
Figure 7 – Home page
Figure 8 – notifications page
The first image above shows the home screen of the app. What is clear is the visual imagery which is
representative of the data. For example the first section of main content is about news stories with
background imagery and below that is a section of people who have changed jobs and images are
representative of them. The navigation is simple with a notification/settings page, search field and
status update section. The second image shows the notifications/settings page which is overlayed
with the main page.
Figure 8 – Third party page
Figure 9 – Specific notifications page
The above images demonstrate who a third party page and specific notifications page could be
demonstrated. The QS app the could benefit from using similar interface styles that the potential
users are already familiar with. Search results, individual profile pages for third parties, notification
pages etc. contain elements that can be used by the QS app. Trusted suppliers could display details
about them, delivery charges special offers etc. Likewise a notifications page could show updated
results, changes in prices, invitations for special group buyer discounts etc.
Summary
Adopting a social network styled interface will allow users to develop trust in the application as it
mimics other applications they use. Using a similar paradigm means that there is less training and
the learnability of the application is improved. Interface metaphors and mental models are already
established e.g. you need not tell users they may click on a business's profile, the style of the
application suggests that this is expected. Likewise trust in the results (searches for materials or
labour) will be established as the user already has developed trust in similar applications search
results in terms of relevancy etc.