Kane Group
Kane Group connected its drawing release schedule to client information and created views for different responsibilities. Document controllers could check issues and responses, while designers could find drawings requiring issue, revision or follow-up.
Kane Group · 3 December 2025
Kasia Russek, Design Office Manager at Kane Group.
Presentation published 3 December 2025.
Kane Group connected its drawing release schedule to client information and gave colleagues views of the drawings that needed their attention. Document controllers could check issues and responses, while designers could find the work assigned to them.
- 11 projects used Morta at the time of Kasia’s presentation.
- Around 60 viewers and contributors used the system at that point.
- Estimated 256 hours saved per month across four document controllers, calculated by Kasia from the team’s answer that using Morta saved them two days a week.
Executive summary
Kane replaced disconnected Excel trackers with a drawing release schedule in Morta, connected to its own Viewpoint system and client information. Paired revisions, statuses and dates helped document controllers check what had reached the client and which responses were outstanding. Views organised by person and status identified drawings needing issue, revision or follow-up. The approach extended to technical submittals, procurement order information, RFIs and model changes, with Power BI supplying project summaries and weekly client reports. Connected data refreshed daily. Wider procurement tracking, BSA compliance tracking and reporting inside Morta were still being developed or planned.
The results
Kasia asked four document controllers how much time using Morta had saved. Their answer was two days a week. Her calculation put the saving at an estimated 256 hours a month across the group. She linked it to mostly automated data entry, fewer duplicate records and reports that no longer required manual preparation in Excel.
Kasia also reported greater confidence in the information used by the design team. Internal and external revisions appeared together, with dates and statuses identifying what had been issued and what still needed a response. Document controllers could check those records and keep Kane’s status information aligned with the client’s response.
Power BI drew on Morta data for project summaries used by design, procurement and pre-construction colleagues, and for progress reports shared with clients each week. Status and workset breakdowns identified drawings still to issue, construction approvals and overdue information on both Kane’s and the client’s side. Teams could see where progress was held up and whom to chase. Planned and actual issues, technical submittals, models and RFIs were included in the reporting.
The challenge
As Kane grew, its trackers demanded more manual work. Dates, revisions and colours were entered by hand across multiple spreadsheets and folders. The team also maintained its own records separately from client information.
The drawing tracker had tabs for internal issue, site-team use and withdrawn information. Withdrawing a drawing meant copying its details into another tab. Duplicate drawing numbers or descriptions could feed incorrect calculations and reports, leaving document controllers to search through revisions, statuses and dates for the mistake.
The solution
Kane connected Viewpoint and client systems, including Aconex, Asite and Viewpoint, to Morta and combined their data in one tracker. Daily refreshes brought the two sides together for document controllers to compare, and the same information fed Power BI reporting.
Check both sides of a drawing issue
The drawing release schedule, labelled IRS, was the main table. Each drawing had its description, planned and actual issue dates, responsible person, document type and comments from fortnightly meetings. This connected the issue record to the person responsible and the discussion about the work.
An internal issue record needs a corresponding external record to establish that a drawing reached the client’s system. At Kane, imported fields supplied the first external issue date and compared Kane’s revision with the client’s revision. Document controllers could check that the drawing had arrived, then compare statuses to see the client’s response and update Kane’s own record.
The latest upload date, days with the client and overdue indicator distinguished recently issued drawings from those awaiting a response for longer. Document controllers could identify which responses needed following up. Revision history kept each issue and its resulting status together, making it possible to trace what had happened to a particular revision.
Give each team the view it needs
Kane labelled its shorter client view Technical Information Delivery Plan, or TIDP. Drawing descriptions, planned and actual issue dates, revisions and statuses gave clients a concise way to compare intended delivery with the recorded issue. They could log in to see information refreshed daily, or receive an Excel export.
The workload-by-person view grouped drawings under the colleague responsible, alongside approval status and meeting comments. Designers could find their drawings needing issue and read the comments against them. An overdue view isolated late items without requiring a search through the whole IRS.
Other views separated the actions required at different stages. Responsible designers could find preliminary items with statuses A, B or C that needed attention, and construction-stage status C drawings requiring urgent revision. A further view collected preliminary information that would later need revising for construction. Pre-construction colleagues had a programme drop-line view of the schedule, bringing the programme information they needed into one view.
Changing a drawing’s document type to withdrawn placed it in the withdrawn view automatically. Document controllers no longer needed to copy that record between spreadsheet tabs. Internal-only and site-team views also separated the information relevant to those uses.
Connect technical submittals to procurement
Kane split technical-submittal tracking between mechanical and electrical work. Expected issue dates and comments sat alongside a reason when a submittal had not been issued, identifying a dependency on procurement, supply chain or design. That gave mechanical and electrical colleagues a starting point for following up with the relevant team. Paired internal and external revisions and statuses also let them check the recorded issue and response.
Procurement colleagues entered order numbers, warranties and order status against the relevant submittals. Keeping those details with the submittal record let them track order progress alongside its latest revision upload and time with the client. These order fields were in use, while the wider procurement tracker was still being developed.
Follow changes in related information
The RFI tracker separated overdue requests for information from those that were closed or resolved, helping project colleagues identify requests needing follow-up.
Model tracking indicated when architectural, structural or other models had changed. Kane’s design team then needed to update its own information to work from the latest revision. The design-information tracker provided a similar signal for external parties’ drawings. When an external revision changed, document control knew to update Kane’s records.
The implementation
Kasia’s original plan was to create the IRS. Views for different needs followed, before the approach extended to models, RFIs and other information. At the time of the presentation, she said one person had managed the work. She also acknowledged support from Morta’s team.
Each project opened with a help sheet explaining where to find information in its folders. A summary document provided access to the project report. Some colleagues viewed the data, while others contributed to it.
Colleagues continued to supply meeting comments and procurement order information. Those inputs recorded the discussion and order details needed alongside the connected dates, revisions and statuses. Automation handled repeated data updates and comparisons.
Before and after
| Task | Earlier Excel workflow | Kane’s Morta workflow at the presentation |
|---|---|---|
| Maintain drawing status | Enter dates, revisions and colours manually. | Bring connected dates, revisions and statuses into the schedule. |
| Withdraw a drawing | Copy its details into another tab. | Change document type to place it in the withdrawn view. |
| Find work needing action | Search the larger tracker. | Open views for the responsible person, overdue items or statuses requiring action. |
| Compare internal and client information | Maintain disconnected records. | Compare revisions, statuses and dates to check issue and response. |
| Prepare progress reports | Assemble and refresh reports manually. | Feed Morta data into project and client reporting in Power BI. |
About Kane Group
Kane Group’s building services work covered design, development and delivery across the UK and Ireland. This implementation centred on the design office, document control and the teams using their information.
What’s next
At the presentation, Kasia planned to move more reporting into Morta dashboards and reduce the need for separate Power BI licences. As-built drawings, offsite drawings and BSA compliance were among the planned uses. BSA compliance and the wider procurement tracker were still being developed.
Watch Kasia’s information planning and tracking presentation.
