A construction document workflow built for contracting companies.
Letters, versions, approvals, and responsibilities scatter across inboxes and drives. The deadline to answer a notice or a claim passes before the letter reaches the right person — and six months later nobody can reconstruct who, when, or what it concerned. We build a workflow that puts this in order.
A letter that has lost its date, its author, or its link to the scope stops being evidence.
The points where information gets lost on contracts are surprisingly repeatable — and almost none of them comes from negligence. The most common ones:
Most losses come not from the lack of a tool, but from the lack of three fields: the event date, the author, and a reference to the scope of works.
Full analysis: seven points where information gets lost →A dedicated workflow built on your company’s process, not on someone else’s procedure.
We don’t start with technology. First we agree on a process that can actually be followed — only then does the application take shape. The register covers incoming and outgoing letters, with statuses, workflow steps, response deadlines, and responsible roles.
Every document gets a status and a version in one place, a link to the work front or a bill-of-quantities item, and an explicit approval path — an approval workflow based on roles, not names, with the date of entering each step.
The workflow covers contract documents: correspondence, claims, acceptance protocols and approvals. It does not replace the construction logbook or the material register — it brings order to the layer of letters and decisions that no contract document keeps for you.
What the document workflow covers.
The core of the catalog is shown by the working correspondence register demo; change history and periodic reporting belong to the scope of a full deployment — no features for the sake of features.
Letter register
Incoming and outgoing letters in a single register: number, letter reference, sender as a contract role, and the case subject.
Two dates, not one
The letter date and the received date as separate fields — the response deadline runs from receipt, not from the date printed on the document.
Workflow in steps
Registration → assignment → substantive review → response → closure, with a case status and a days-on-step counter.
Deadlines and owners
Every letter has a response deadline and an assigned role — you can see who owns the case and by when, before the deadline passes.
Link to the scope
A reference to the work front or a bill-of-quantities item keeps the letter accountable even months later.
History and reporting
Versions, approvals, a full change history, and periodic summaries without manual data assembly — the scope of a full deployment, which the public demo deliberately does not cover.
See it in a working demo.
The correspondence register runs in your browser, with no login and without sending anything to a server. It shows the workflow’s data model: the letter date separated from the received date, a reference to the work front, a five-step workflow, and a days-on-step counter. Below is an illustrative mockup with the same columns.
We applied the same pattern — a single source of data instead of a scattered inbox — in an anonymized warranty register: requests, deadlines, responsibilities, and periodic reporting in one place.
See the case study →From process diagnosis to a working workflow.
The project can start with a small scope — a single document stream — and grow only once it delivers results.
Before you book — common questions about document workflow.
Is this an off-the-shelf system, or do you build from scratch?
It's a dedicated workflow built on your company's process — not a ready-made SaaS imposing someone else's way of working. The starting point is your path of letters and approvals, not ours.
Where do we start?
With a process diagnosis: how a letter circulates today, who assigns it, where deadlines slip. You don't need a ready specification — it takes shape once we understand the process, roles, and decisions.
Can we start with a single document type?
Yes. The safest start is a single stream — for example contract correspondence or acceptance protocols — and expanding the workflow only once the first one delivers results.
What about the existing Excel registers?
Excel can be replaced gradually. We start with the process that generates the most manual work or the highest risk of a missed deadline; the initial data is migrated, so no history is lost.
How does role-based access work?
The approval path is based on roles, not names — so when people change on the contract, accountability doesn't dissolve. Everyone sees what they are responsible for.
Let’s start with a single document type.
You don’t need a specification or a chosen system. Describe the document workflow that generates the most manual work, delays, or risk of a missed deadline — we’ll point out which stream to start with.