Blogs


Assigning access rights to “Field choices in Configuration tables” for the Building designers in ERP environments

Configuration tables are data tables that store information representing multiple choices that exist in business and are required to be chosen frequently by building designers and project teams.To ensure the development of robust designs and avoid conflict of “Roles,” access to “Field choices ” in the “Configuration tables”  need to be assigned carefully (based on the competence level of designers) in the Design of Architectural, Interior designing, and Design of MEP functions.Many functions can use configuration tables depending on the access assigned. Therefore, a separate chapter 5 is dedicated to developing Configuration tables in my handbook and hence not being duplicated. For developing “Roles,” a basic initial understanding of the following aspects is necessary.·      i)Field choices in Configuration tables in ERP environments.·      ii) Assessing risks in accessing Field choices  in Configuration tables·      iii) Segregation of duties (Abbreviated as S-O-D)·      iv)Development of Authorisation Profiles or called profiles in this Handbook·      v) Attaching Profiles to RolesThe summary of each of the above points is as below.i)Field choices  in configuration tables in ERP environmentsA few examples of field choices required frequently by building designers and project teams are below.·       Types of packages (e.g., civil, interior design, MEP, and further drill down within each of these packages)·       Types of project organisation (Housing, Commercial, hospitality, etc.)·       Types of vendors (e.g., consultants/contractors/service providers/business associates)·       Types of business documents (Design brief document, sanctioned drawing, Good for construction, As-built drawing, etc·       Types of materials /BOQ items for various works (e.g., civil, electrical, plumbing, etc.)·       Types of inspection frequency for BOQ/Constructed packages (e.g., none, % sampling,100%, etc.)·       Types of Inspection attributes (dimensional, metallurgical, chemical, etc. vis a vis BOQ in various packages) Of course, designers  and project teams can add many more field choices relevant to the number of packages designed vis-a-vis construction projects in their respective organisations.ii) Assessing risks in accessing Field choices in configuration  tablesWhat access right ( Create or edit or delete or view or approve as stated in the previous paragraph ) is to be assigned is influenced by the risk assessment of accessing the individual field choices, i.e., High, Medium, or Low.The methodology for classifying risks to fields is given in chapter 10 of the handbook and annex 15D, wherein 19 field choices have been identified as having Medium, risks and hence not being duplicated here.The methodology can also be accessed at my website blog: https://www.ethicalprocesses.com/blog_detail/risk-assessments-at-fields-level-of-configuration-tables. So at the time of developing authorization profiles, the designer must have prior knowledge of risk level as captured in the illustrations given belowiii)Segregation of duties S-O-D:The aspects related to S-O-D have been covered in one of the earlier blogs on my website and hence are not being duplicated (please refer to https://www.ethicalprocesses.com/blog_detail/Avoiding-conflicting-roles-amongst-Architects-Interior-and-MEP-designersThe S-O-D concept has been used for developing this blog as implementing S-O-D can enable avoiding conflict of roles amongst designers at different levels.iv)Development of Authorisation profiles -1 illustration having 5 “Field choices” in the configuration tableThe author proposes developing five authorization profiles for accessing each “field choice “in configuration tables.There must be a distinct option to choose from any one or combination of the following five activities.·      Create or initiate a specific individual /identified “Field choice” for which access is to be given vis a vis Design of Architectural, Interior designing, and Design MEP function.·       Edit or modify the “Field choice” within each Field ·       Delete the “Field choice” within each Field ·       View  the “Field choice” within each Field ·       Approve the “Field choice” within each Field  An illustration of the method of developing authorization profiles for 5 “field choices” in one configuration table in the Design of Architecture function is given below.This illustration contains all required information in a tabular form with a suggested profile code numbering scheme.The reader can change the proposed profile code numbering and information in each row at their discretion.Thus, the author proposes developing five authorization profiles for each field choice in the configuration table.Illustration for one configuration table  Function: Design of ArchitectCode number of Configuration Table for SOD assignment =CT211Macro-level Risk for this table:  Medium (previously assessed)Field name =Types of Civil package, Field Code=F501,Codes & names of Field choices in this Field F501 are as below: A01-Structure, A02-Civil works, A03-Façade-Risk, A04-External development (e.g., Roads, Gates, Drainage, etc.), A05-Softscape, and say ten moreRisk at these “field choice” levels=Medium (previously assessed)The coding schemes are given in the book of the authorProfile numbers Proposed for accessing “Field choice A01” in Field F501 in CT211: PT01001 to PT01005 (Compiled in Annexure 30C) DescriptionPT01001PT01002PT01003PT01004PT01005Key “Rights” vis a vis this Field Choice (RHS of this row)Column 1Create/InitiateColumn 2Edit/ModifyColumn 3Delete Column 4View* Column 5Approve Column 6Function assignedDesign of ArchitectDesign of ArchitectDesign of ArchitectDesign of ArchitectDesign of ArchitectTeam assignedNumber & nameT-1or T2 or T3 or T4 Architectfor relevant areaT-5ArchitectFor all areasT-6FunctionalRisk CoordinatorT-1*or T2* or T3* or T4* Architectfor relevant areaT-7function head Employee Level ProposedmiddleHighermiddlemiddleHigher Position who can perform Mgr.Sr Mgr.Sr. Mgr.Mgr.*GM Risk classifications for remaining field choices A02 -A05 are also assessed the same, i.e., Medium. Therefore, the SOD matrix (capturing Function, team, team member’s level & position) for these field choices are proposed to be identical to field choice A01 as above.The proposed profile numbers for the field choices identified in this table are below.·      A01 -PT01001-PT01005·      A02- PT01006-PT01010·      A03- PT01011-PT01015·      A04- PT01016-PT01020·      A05- PT01021-PT01025 Thus 25 profiles have been generated as above using the SOD conceptT1, T2, T3….. represent team numbers within design function(e.g., structure, architecture, façade, etc.).The numbering schemes for configuration tables, Fields, field choices , Teams , Profiles, etc., are described in chapter 9 of my handbook and hence not being duplicated here. Based on business needs, the number of access profiles for accessing field choices in configuration tables can be determined/estimated per the following approach. ·      In the case of configuration tables, authorization profiles for accessing field choices need to be developed @5 profiles per field choice.·      It means developing 95 authorization profiles (@5x19 fields identified). The author proposes developing 3000 profiles for design [email protected], 1000 per Function (Design of Architect, Interior, and MEP Design) for field choices.·      The profile numbering can say starting from PT01001 to PT04000 iv)Attaching Profiles to RolesOnce configured, “HOD can attach Authorisation Profiles” so developed to various “Roles” (with the help of the IT team) depending on the roles planned based on team member level, hierarchical position, and skill levels relevant to function.The concept of roles has been mentioned in one of the earlier blogs on my website as below, hence not being duplicated.https://www.ethicalprocesses.com/blog_detail/How-to-assign-Roles-to-Architects-interior-and-MEP-designers-systematically--An-Illustration- In some ERP-driven business environments, like SAP, profile-generating software is also available wherein standards authorization profiles can be developed and attached to designers for transacting in respective design development modules.  Once authorization profiles have been developed, the attachment of these profiles to roles is proposed in three steps as below, precisely similar to the steps described in the earlier blog for accessing fields in master data tables. a) Attach profile to roles in the development serverb) Test roles in test servers by ERP teams and designers      c)Upload roles to the production server, after testing approval To ensure that no incompatible or conflicting authorization profiles get attached, the roles need to be attached to the production server by following P-D-C-A (plan-do-check-act) approachThe number of profiles and hence the number of roles can run into several hundred or thousands depending upon the following:·      Size and complexity of the organization·      the variety of Construction projects residential, commercial, educational, SEZ, etc·      The skill level of designers·      The technology of construction, design software,·      The design organization structure and empowerment culture·       The risk appetite of the company. These roles can then be assigned to different positions, independent of the names of individuals. Handbook of the author A template illustrating assigning access rights to Field choices is included in chapter 11 (annex 28C) in the author's handbook and titled” ETHICS in the real estate and hospitality industry, Volume 1- Architectural, Interior design, and MEP services.       


Assigning access rights to “Fields in Master data tables” for the Building designers in ERP environments

 To ensure the development of robust designs and avoid conflict of “Roles” access to “Fields” in the “Master data tables”  need to be assigned carefully (based on the competence level of designers) in the Design of Architectural, Interior designing, and Design of MEP functions“Master data” is the core data that is used as a base for any transaction. In the current context of this article of designing, purchasing BOQ, and construction, whatever activity may be, it requires certain master data to be maintained.Master data tables contain “Fields” as per requirements as captured in the following paragraph.Depending on the comprehensiveness of the master data table, the number of master data tables, in any function, can be restricted to a reasonable number. Master data tables can be used by many functions, depending on the access assigned and a separate chapter 6 is dedicated to developing master data tables in my handbook and hence not being duplicated. For developing “Roles”, a basic initial understanding of the following aspects is necessary.·      i)Fields in ERP environments (e.g., S.A.P)·      ii) Assessing risks in accessing Fields in master data tables·      iii) Segregation of duties (Abbreviated as S-O-D)·      iv)Development of Authorisation Profiles or called profiles in this Handbook·      v) Attaching of Profiles to RolesThe summary of each of the above points is as below.i)Fields in ERP environmentsFor simple understanding, the “Field” contains the data at the granularity level and can be used in forms, documents and tables and must have a number, and description, field length. Data type/data element /value can be assigned to the field as per the purpose of the field and governed by the design of types of tables designed in the ERP environmentsa list of Fields (in each of the master data tables) needs to be identified for which access rights are to be given. Examples of a few fields are as below·      F504= List of Drawings & technical specifications for the scope of work, including for BOQ - Structure work packages·      F505= Drawings & technical specifications - Civil Building works package·      F506= Drawings & technical specifications - Facade works packageAnd so onA list of 109 such fields, identified by the author in the handbook as applicable for building design functions (as below) out of 428 fields relevant to construction projects is available in annex 1F,1G in the author’s handbook·      Design of Architecture=27 fields  ( for 5 packages)·      Interior designing =23 fields ( for four packages)·      Design of MEP functions= 59 fields  (for  2 packages)Total fields identified=109                                 Of course, designers can add many more fields as relevant to the number of packages to be designed vis-a-vis construction projects in their respective organisations, and the number of fields may run into hundredsFor 13 functions in the real estate /hospitality Industry, 870 fields have been identified by the author in the handbook in Annex 1A to 1Gii) Assessing risks in accessing Fields in master data tablesWhat access right ( Create or edit or delete or view or approve as stated in the previous paragraph ) is to be assigned is influenced by the risk assessment of accessing the respective field ie High, Medium, or Low .The methodology for classifying risks to fields is given in chapter 10 of the handbook and annex 16D, wherein 56 fields have been identified as having High, Medium, or Low risks and hence not being duplicated here.The methodology can also be accessed at my website blog: https://www.ethicalprocesses.com/blog_detail/how-to-assess-risks-at-field-level-of-master-data-tables.So at the time of developing authorization profiles, the designer must have prior knowledge of risk level as captured in the illustrations given below.iii)Segregation of duties S-O-D:The aspects related to S-O-D have been covered in one of the earlier blogs on my website and hence are not being duplicated (please refer to https://www.ethicalprocesses.com/blog_detail/Avoiding-conflicting-roles-amongst-Architects-Interior-and-MEP-designersHowever, the S-O-D concept has been used for developing this blog as implementing S-O-D can enable avoiding conflict of roles amongst designers at different levels.iv)Development of Authorisation profiles -1 illustration having 5 Fields in Master data tableThe author proposes developing five authorization profiles for accessing each field in master data tables, and illustrations are given belowThere must be a distinct option to choose from any one or combination of the following five activities.·      Create or initiate the “contents” within a specific individual /identified Field for which access is to be given vis a vis Design of Architectural, Interior designing, and Design of MEP function.·       Edit or modify the “contents” within each Field ·       Delete the “contents” within each Field ·       View  the “contents” within each Field ·       Approve the “contents” within each Field  An illustration of the method of developing authorization profiles for five fields in one master data table in the Design of Architecture function is given in below table and is self-explanatory.This illustration contains all the required information with a suggested profile code numbering scheme.The reader can change the proposed profile code numbering as also the information in each row at his/her absolute discretion.Thus, the author proposes developing authorization profiles @ five for each field in the master data tableIllustrationKey Function: Design of ArchitectMaster data table considered for illustration =MT106Table name: Drawings/specification master-Packages in Civil worksMacro Risk assessed -for this table: HighCodes & names of Fields with High levels of risk are as below.·      F504= List of Drawings & technical specifications for the scope of work, including for BOQ - Structure work packages·      F505= Drawings & technical specifications - Civil Building works package·      F506= Drawings & technical specifications - Facade works package·      F507= Drawings & technical specifications - External development areas / Landscape /hardscape works package·      F508= Drawings & technical specifications - Softscape works packageThe coding schemes are given in the book of the authorProfile numbers Proposed for accessing Field F504 in MT106: PM00501 to PM00505DescriptionPM00501PM00502PM00503PM00504PM00505Key “Rights” vis a vis this Field (RHS of this row)Column 1Create/InitiateColumn 2Edit/ModifyColumn 3Delete Column 4View* Column 5Approve Column 6Function assignedCode & nameDesign ofArchitectureDesign ofArchitectureDesign ofArchitectureDesign ofArchitectureDesign ofArchitectureTeam assignedNumber & nameT-1or T2 or T3 or T4Architectfor relevant areaT-5ArchitectFor all areasT-6FunctionalRisk CoordinatorT-1*or T2* or T3* or T4*Architectfor relevant areaT-7function head Level empoweredMiddleHighermiddleMiddleHigherPosition who can performSr. Mgr.GMSr. Mgr.Mgr.*ProjectHeadRisk classifications for remaining fields F505, F506, F507, and F508 are also assessed the same i.e. High. Therefore, the SOD matrix (capturing Function, team, employee’s level & position) for these fields is proposed to be identical to field F504 as above.The proposed profile numbers for these fields identified in this table are as below..·      F504- PM00501- PM00505·      F505- PM00506- PM00510·      F506- PM00511- PM00515·      F507- PM00516- PM00520·      F508- PM00521- PM00525Thus 25 profiles have been generated as above using the SOD conceptT1,T2,T3….. represent team numbers with in design function(e.g. structure, architecture, façade etc).The numbering schemes for Master data tables, Fields, Teams ,Profiles etc are described in chapter 9 of my handbook and hence not being duplicated here  .  Based on business needs, the number of access profiles for accessing fields in master data tables can be determined/estimated as per the following approach. ·      Authorization profiles for accessing fields need to be developed @5 profiles per field.·      It means developing 545 authorization profiles (@5x109 fields identified by the author).·      For professionals' easier understanding, in annex 16D in the book, 280 authorisation profiles have been illustrated for 56 fields.·      The author proposes developing 1500 profiles for design [email protected] 500 profiles per function, say, fields @ 100 in each of the Design of Architectural, Interior designing, and Design of MEP functions·      The profile numbering can be,say, starting from PM00501 to PM02000 iv)Attaching Profiles to RolesOnce configured, “Authorisation Profiles” so developed can be attached by HOD to various “Roles” (with the help of the IT team) depending on the roles planned based on team member level, hierarchical position, and skill levels relevant to function.The concept of roles has been mentioned in one of the earlier blogs in my website as below and hence not being duplicated.https://www.ethicalprocesses.com/blog_detail/How-to-assign-Roles-to-Architects-interior-and-MEP-designers-systematically--An-Illustration- In some ERP-driven business environments, like SAP, profile generating software is also available wherein standards authorization profiles can be developed and attached to designers for transacting in respective design development modules.  Once authorization profiles have been developed, attachment of these profiles to roles is proposed in three steps as below  a) Attach profile to roles in the development serverb) Test roles in test servers by ERP teams and designers      c)Upload roles to the production server, after testing approval To ensure that no incompatible or conflicting authorization profiles get attached, the roles need to be attached to the production server by following P-D-C-A (plan-do-check-act) approachThe number of profiles and hence the number of roles can run into several hundred or thousands depending upon the following:·      Size and complexity of the organization·      the variety of Construction projects residential, commercial, educational, SEZ, etc·      The skill level of designers·      The technology of construction, design software,·      The design organization structure and empowerment culture·       Risk appetite of the company. These roles can then be assigned to different positions, independent of the names of individuals Handbook of the author The templates illustrating generation of profiles for accessing fields in master data table are included in chapter 11 (annex 29C and 30D) in the handbook of the author and titled” ETHICS in the real estate and hospitality industry, Volume 1- Architectural, Interior design, and MEP services “     


How to assign Roles to Architects, interior, and MEP designers systematically? -An Illustration

  This blog aims to provide essential insights into the process of assigning roles to designers vis a vis 225 identified core design activities performed by designers as summarised below and included in the handbook mentioned at the end of this blog. ·       By Architects=118- For designing Design of structure+ Architecture+ Façade+ external development +softscape works ·       By Interior designers =37 -For designing Finishing works +Furniture, fixtures, and equipment for interiors +Artwork ·       By MEP designers =70 -For Electricals (external and internal) +Airconditioning and Basement ventilation works   This requires a basic understanding of four concepts as highlighted below i)Segregation of duties (Abbreviated as S-O-D) to avoid conflict of roles   ii)Development of Authorisation Profiles or simply called profiles in this Handbook   iii) Understanding the concept of roles   iv) Attaching Profiles to Roles Four concepts i)Segregation of duties S-O-D: The aspects related to S-O-D have been covered in one of the earlier blogs on my website and hence are not being duplicated (please refer to https://www.ethicalprocesses.com/blog_detail/49 ). Implementing S-O-D can enable avoiding conflict of roles amongst designers at different levels. ii)Development of Authorisation profiles -Accessing Core activities -1 illustration The author proposes developing five authorization profiles for performing each core activity, and illustrations are given below It is suggested that, for each design activity (within each design stage), there must be a distinct option to choose from any one or combination of the following five activities ·       Create or initiate the design activity e.g., initiate concept design or draw sanction drawings or make a tender, and so on) ·       Edit or modify the above design activity ·       Delete the above design activity ·       View the above design activity ·       Approve the above design activity An illustration for the “Design of Architecture function”, is captured below in a tabular form with a suggested profile code numbering scheme (given in the handbook, chapter 9 and hence not covered here), which of course, can be changed by the reader at their absolute discretion.   Function: Design of Architecture Name of Core process vis a vis activity for SOD development: Design of Structure Design Activity Description:  Developing Concept designs and schemes (based on design calculations of PCC/Reinforcements requirements based on a factor of safety/Earthquake zone etc.) and using software like STADD or ETAB. Risk Classification for accessing this Core Activity:  High. Profile numbers Proposed for accessing this Core Activity: PC02001 to PC02005(Compiled in Annexure 30A in the book mentioned below) Description PC02001 PC02002 PC02003 PC02004 PC02005 Key “Rights” vis a vis this activity (RHS of this row) Column 1 Create or   Initiate Column 2 Edit/ or Modify Column 3 Delete   Column 4 View   Column 5 Approve   Column 6 Function assigned Name (RHS of this row) (Design of Architecture (Design of Architecture (Design of Architecture (Design of Architecture (Design of Architecture Team assigned Number & name(RHS of this row)   T-5 Architect For all areas T-6 Functional Risk Coordinator T-6 Functional Risk Coordinator T5 ArchitectFor all areas and  other designers  T-7 function head Employee Level Proposed (RHS of this row) Middle Higher middle middle Higher Position who can Perform (RHS of this row) Sr. Mgr. GM Sr. Mgr. Mgr. Project Head Thus for 1st illustrated design activity, 5 Profile numbers have been generated using the SOD concept as PC02001 to PC02005 to each set of Combination of Function +Team+ Level +Position vis columns 2,3,4,5 & 6, respectively. Team name, Positions & levels mentioned in this table are hypothetical for simple understanding of readers and can be suitably modified at the absolute discretion of the organisation   Interior & MEP designers can directly develop similar tables per the above illustration for all other packages. Such development of profiles is to be completed for each of the 225 design activities as identified in the handbook. It implies developing 1125 authorization profiles (@5x225 activities identified). However, before assigning rights /functions/levels/positions to each profile, each of the 225core design activities must be thoroughly studied and individually classified as having High, Medium, or low risks as per methodology given in a separate chapter 10 of the handbook and illustrations in annex 13C The Number of activities can be much higher or enhanced as required based on the size of construction projects and design organisation. Thus assuming 400 design activities in each of Architect, Interior, and MEP design functions, 2000 profiles per design function (@5 profile per activity, i.e., @ 2000 profiles for each of 3 design functions totaling 6000 profiles, i.e., PC02001 to PC08000 as captured in the book.  iii) Understanding the concept of “Roles” Roles mean what a particular professional (here a designer) is authorised to do as per a few examples below. ·       Developing a concept design is one simple role say simple role 1 ·       Simply drafting or generating drawings is another simple role say simple role 2 ·       Developing sanction drawings for statutory approval is another example of a simple role say a simple role 3 ·       Integration of designs say with MEP design is another role, which is a relatively complex role say a complex role 1   ·       Developing detailed design and also making tenders is an example of the complex role say a complex role 2   Based on the earlier tabulated illustration, the configured, “Authorisation Profiles” PC02001 to PC02005 so developed can be attached by the HOD-Architect function to simple “Roles” (with the help of the IT/ERP team) depending on the roles planned at the granularity level.  Once all the 1125 authorization profiles have been developed (or higher say 6000 profiles as stated above), attachment of these profiles to various roles is proposed to be done in three steps as below, particularly when the design organisation is operating in highly digitalized/ERP environments.      Thus, a role can have one or more combinations of profiles (out of 1125 profiles for 225 activities or 6000 expanded profiles) attached to it, to be called a “Simple or complex Role”.     iv) Attaching Profiles to Roles Although the number of profiles can run into thousands (as mentioned above), the number of designers in organisations is limited. It is, therefore prudent that before the final attachment of profiles to roles, thorough testing is done to see that design activities are carried out smoothly based on competency assessments at different hierarchical levels & positions who will perform such roles.   The steps are:    a) Attach profile to roles in “Development computer server”   b) Test roles in “Test servers” by ERP teams and designers                 c) Upload roles to the “Production server” for implementation, after approval of testing of roles   To ensure that no incompatible or conflicting authorization profiles get attached, the roles, post-testing, can be attached to the production server by following P-D-C-A (plan-do-check-act) approach   Thus, the Number of roles can run into tens & hundred (as profiles may be in thousands) depending upon the following: ·       Size and complexity of the organization ·       the variety of Construction projects residential, commercial, educational, SEZ, etc ·       The skill level of designers ·       The multi-tasking role expectation of the organisation. ·       The technology of construction, design software, ·       The design organization structure and empowerment culture ·        Risk appetite of the company.        Therefore, to enable the digitalization for developing thousands of profiles, some ERP Vendors, like SAP, offer profile generating software, wherein standards authorization profiles can be developed and attached to architects, interior, and MEP designers for carrying out design development.    These roles can then be assigned to different positions, independent of the names of individuals after factoring following: ·       Number of teams & design functions ·       Number of employee levels ·       Types of positions in the hierarchy  ·       Competency level associated with roles (covered in earlier blog https://www.ethicalprocesses.com/blog_detail/46)   Such profile assignments can be done digitally but must be done diligently, and each role may have a multitude of authorisation profiles attached to it. Soon, please look for separate blogs that will be prepared & published for assigning roles to Architects, interior, and MEP designers (titled “Assigning access rights” for performing other activities, such as statutory activities, accessing master data tables, and so on.   Handbook of the author  A template illustrating assigning access rights to activities is included in chapter 11 (annex 26C) in the handbook of author and titled” ETHICS in the real estate and hospitality industry, Volume 1- Architectural, Interior design, and MEP services “          


Avoiding conflicting roles amongst Architects, Interior and MEP designers

For carrying out various design function-related activities, the process of assigning user rights to core design activities, particularly in IT environments, is complex.  If Architects, Interior Designers, and MEP designers are assigned rights injudiciously, there can be conflicting roles as per a few illustrations below. Few Illustrations of conflicting role assignments in Design functions are tabulated below      SNo Design Activity Description       Architect       Assigned Say employee code Interior designer        Assigned Say employee code    MEP designer       Assigned Say employee code 1 Initiate or /create or design development activity at the Concept design development stage                         EA001   EI001   ME001   The same designer approves the Concept design without any peer review or higher-level designer                                  EA001   E1002   ME001 2 Initiate or /create or design development activity at the Schematic design development stage                         EA002   EI002   ME002   The same designer approves the Schematic design developed without any peer review or higher-level designer                                  EA002   E1002   ME002 3 Initiate or /create sanction designs/drawings for submitting to the regulatory body   EA003   Not applicable   ME003   The same designer approves the sanction designs/drawings developed without any peer review or higher-level designer and submitted to the regulatory bodies                                  EA003   Not applicable   ME003 4 Initiate or /create detailed designs/drawings based on statutory approvals   EA003   Not applicable   ME003   The same designer approves the detailed designs /drawings without any peer review or higher-level designer          EA003   Not applicable   ME003 5 Initiate or /create Tenders with technical and commercial terms EA004   EI003   ME004     The same designer approves the Tender without any peer review or higher-level designer          EA004   E1003   ME004 6 Estimating costs of the entire building based on various Bill of quantities EA004   EI003   ME004     The same designer approves the project cost without any peer review or higher-level designer   E004   EI003   ME004 7 Initiate or /create “As build designs/drawings” EA005   EI004   ME005     The same designer approves the As build designs/drawings” without any peer review or higher-level designer          EA005   E1004   ME005 8 Negotiate fees and payment terms with the outsourced “Consultant” for procuring consultancy-related design services  EA004   EI003   ME004   Approve the fee rate of the external consultant without involving the contracts team or finance team   EA004   E1003   ME004 9 Certify & Approve work initiation or completion of outsourced “Consultant” w. r. t.  designs and drawings EA003   EI002   ME003   Authorize payment releases for advance/other payments to outsourced “Consultant.” Against work initiation /completion   EA003   E1002   ME003 10 Create” an agreement with an outsourced “Consultant” towards services EA004   EI003   ME004   Approve/release such agreement directly (without vetting of Scope of design work, terms, and conditions by project-finance or and project-legal team or and Project head)   EA004   E1003   ME004 11 Make changes in the scope of the outsourced Consultant’s Consultancy work and associated deliverables EA004   EI003   ME004   Approve & release” the amended agreement to the outsourced “Consultant”.   EA004   E1003   ME004 12 Make changes in outsourced Consultant fees or reimbursement rates or payment terms EA004   EI003   ME004   Approve such amendments and pass Running account (RA) bills /final bills of outsourced Consultant for payments   EA004   E1003   ME004  Employee code no’s like EA001 & onwards, EI001 & onwards, ME001 & onwards mentioned above are just for simple understanding of readers and would vary based on the size of the construction company, no of projects to be designed, and design organization structure being lean or fat. Many more such conflicting role possibilities can be directly identified by readers in design functions related to Architects, Interior Designers, and MEP.  In some design functions, with a very lean design organisation, the same designers perform design activities for Architects or & Interior Designers or & and MEP designs. Implications Assigning conflicting roles, can trigger colluding of designers with outsourced consultants or contractors, or project team members, and compromising of the cardinal principle of "segregation of duties" leading to:·       Design deficiencies. ·       Adverse impact on project costs or construction quality or not meeting customer requirements or project completion timelines.·       Statutory non-conformances  Suggested approach – Assigning roles based on Segregation of duties The roles assigned to any designer need to be such that these are appropriate to the designer’s position/level, skill, and competence. The roles are to be assigned so that the cardinal principle of segregation of duties is followed to ensure that there are no conflicts of duties or incompatibility in roles. The activities proposed are as below: 1.     Identify Parameters for developing the S-O-D (Segregation of Duty) template for Assigning Access Rights to Core design processes and their activities 2.    Design SOD templates for assigning access rights to core design processes and their activities based on the parameters identified.3.    Software programming of SOD template for assigning access rights for core design processes and their activities4.    Populate the SOD template with “Access rights” related activities for core design processes. This includes reflecting the assigned profiles for capturing assigned profiles vis-à-vis activity for core processes5.    Affecting Changes     As and when changes occur vis-à-vis following for any reason, the design team reviewing and amending populated templates as above.·       Changes in design functions assigned for executing core processes·       Changes in core design processes·       Changes in design activities ·       Change in hierarchy levels in business hierarchy vis-à-vis lower, medium, and higher levels·       Changes in hierarchy positions of designers vis-à-vis low level, medium level, and high levels e.g.o   Lower level:  staff, junior/assistant manager, and so ono   Middle level: manager, senior manager-sr. Mgr. and so ono   Higher level: general managers-GM, directors-Dir and so on  More details and illustrations about the implementation of the Segregation of duties concept are included in chapter 11 (Templates at annex 26C,27C,28C,29C) in my handbook