Choosing the right platform in the competitive construction management software landscape can significantly impact project success. We recognize the importance of making an informed decision and are eager to present a comprehensive and impartial comparison between two leading platforms: CIPO and Procore.
Drawing from the experiences of a seasoned construction manager, let’s call him John, this review offers valuable insights into how each platform performs in real-world scenarios. Whether overseeing large-scale infrastructure projects or managing smaller ventures, this comparison will aid in determining which software best suits your needs. Delve into John’s thorough analysis and uncover how CIPO and Procore fare in real-world applications.
CIPO vs. Procore: A Construction Manager's Perspective on Two Leading Platforms
As someone who has spent years managing large construction projects, I’ve had the opportunity to work with both Procore and CIPO Software. These platforms are often hailed as leaders in construction management software, but after having implemented both, I can confidently say that each serves a very different purpose. It’s crucial to know which one aligns with your needs before diving in.
In this post, I’ll share my experience setting up and using Procore on one of the most significant PFAS projects in the United States and my time with CIPO, implemented across small and large water infrastructure projects. I’ve been in the trenches with both systems and while they each have their strengths, there are unmistakable differences in how they serve construction managers (CMs) and owners versus contractors. Let’s dive into the comparison.
Procore: A Platform Built for General Contractors
My experience with Procore began with smaller projects in the vertical construction realm as a General Contractor, and I loved it. Then, as a CM Agency, I implemented Procore for a massive PFAS project, which meant navigating a high-stakes, highly regulated environment with many moving parts. If you’re unfamiliar with Procore, it’s often marketed as an all-encompassing construction management platform. From financials to document tracking and field operations, it promises to give teams everything they need to manage projects from start to finish.
But here’s the thing—Procore is fundamentally built for contractors, not owners or construction managers. It’s like putting snow tires on a Formula 1 car; it’ll work and go fast, but it’s not the optimal fit. This became painfully clear during the initial implementation phase. While the platform offers impressive functionality, configuring it to work in our context as a CM agency took significant effort. Procore isn’t designed to cater to the oversight and control required by an Owner’s Representative or CM firm. We had to spend much time tweaking the system, building workarounds, and training the team to adapt to its contractor-first approach.
The Good: Workflow Customization, Email Notifications, and Folder Tracking
Despite the hurdles, some elements of Procore worked well once we got over the learning curve. First, adding and removing users from the submittal workflow was incredibly fast and easy, along with setting the ball in court as needed (as an Admin). Next, folder tracking and email notifications were standout features for our team. Procore’s ability to automate notifications and ensure that the right people were alerted when documents were uploaded, or certain milestones were hit was a significant positive. The system ensured nothing slipped through the cracks, and that’s crucial when you’re managing a project as complex as a multi-site water treatment project.
The Bad: Customer Support
The single most significant downside of using Procore is its customer support. With Procore, you’re funneled into a generic support system, often chatting with agents who are completely detached from the intricacies of your project. Even when contacting our supposed “executive account representative,” we were redirected to the same customer support queue as everyone else. It felt like I was trying to get tech support from Microsoft—impersonal, slow, and frustrating. For the fee (% of construction cost, or what I call “industry inflation”), Procore is making an incredible amount of money – so not providing curated A++ support makes me seek out alternative solutions.
CIPO: Built for Owners and Construction Managers
After working with Procore, I had the opportunity to implement CIPO for a couple of water infrastructure projects, both large and small. Right from the start, the difference was noticeable—CIPO feels like it was designed with owners and construction management agencies in mind (because it was). For someone like me, who operates as a CM for cities and municipalities, CIPO is a breath of fresh air.
The Good: Custom Workflows and Portfolio View
One of the things that sets CIPO apart is its customization. You can create custom workflows tailored to your specific needs, whether you want to manage document approvals, track project milestones, or manage compliance tasks. Moreover, these workflows can be applied globally across multiple projects or customized locally for a single project, allowing you to adapt CIPO to your team’s workflow rather than forcing your team to adapt to the software.
Another feature that could be more useful for me as a CM but where clients find immense value is CIPO’s portfolio view. Unlike Procore, which is more focused on individual project management (although you do have company portfolio views in Procore), CIPO gives you a bird’s eye view of all projects under your purview – and the metrics you want to track can be customized to fit your dashboard. This is invaluable for owners who need to keep track of their project portfolio. The portfolio view lets you monitor project costs, schedules, and other key performance indicators all in one place, including those metrics unique to your organization.
The Tricky: Customization Pitfalls
That said, CIPO’s strength—its customizability—can also be a double-edged sword. With so many options, it can be easy to fall into the trap of over-customizing the platform. Too many features can lead to confusion, especially for less tech-savvy team members. While I appreciated the ability to tailor workflows to each project’s needs, sometimes it felt like I was spending more time tweaking settings than managing the project. Finding a balance between customization and simplicity is crucial and can take some time. Fortunately, once you’re set up, it’s plug-and-play. As a CM, this is valuable because creating new projects for your client base is especially easy. New projects within each environment are already curated for individual client needs.
The Great: Customer Support That Actually Cares
Regarding customer support, CIPO is leaps and bounds ahead of Procore. Whenever I encountered an issue or needed help setting up a new workflow, I could get in touch with my CIPO representative directly—via email or phone. Not only were they responsive, but I typically resolved my issues the same day, or at the very least, within a reasonable timeframe given the circumstances. This kind of personalized support is invaluable when you’re managing complex projects with tight deadlines. It’s clear that CIPO understands the needs of CMs and owners, and their customer service reflects that.
Comparing Procore and CIPO for Owners and CMs
Having implemented both platforms, here’s my take on how they stack up for owners and construction managers:
Procore: Contractor-Focused with Adaptability
Procore is a powerful tool for contractors, and with some effort, it can be adapted for use by CMs and owners. The tracking features and document management tools are robust but designed with the contractor in mind. If you’re a CM or owner managing a contractor-heavy project and can commit the time to customize the platform to suit your needs, Procore can work. However, the learning curve is steep, and customer support leaves much to be desired.
CIPO: Tailored for Owners and Construction Managers
Conversely, CIPO was built from the ground up for CMs and owners. Its ability to manage multiple projects through a single dashboard, custom workflows, and excellent customer support make it a superior choice for owners who need oversight across several projects. CIPO’s design allows you to streamline document control, track project progress, and ensure compliance with far less hassle. The only caution I recommend is avoiding over-customizing, as too many options can slow your team’s adoption but will not affect ongoing product upgrades.
Final Thougths
In my experience, Procore and CIPO both offer valuable tools, but they serve very different roles in the construction ecosystem. Procore excels at project management for contractors and can be adapted for owner and CM use. However, it requires significant customization and a commitment to learning the platform without helpful customer support. Meanwhile, CIPO is the clear winner for owners and construction managers, particularly those working on municipal or large-scale infrastructure projects (while also great for managing small project portfolios). Its tailored features, custom workflows, and top-tier customer support make it the better choice when project oversight, document control, and compliance are the priorities.
If you're an owner or construction manager looking for a platform that truly understands your needs, CIPO is the way to go.
Leave a Reply