Saudi Real Estate Developer: Accountability for Material After It Leaves the Store

01

The challenge

On a construction site, material moves faster than paperwork. The developer's process recorded material up to the moment it was issued to a contractor or a location. After that point the trail went cold: how much was installed, how much remained, what was returned, transferred or damaged, and which balances were never resolved.

That gap sits exactly where material leaves the developer's direct control, so without a confirmed record after issue nobody can say with confidence where an unresolved balance went. The obvious fix, a full stock ledger, turned out not to be simple either: the audit found that a ledger could only be trusted after opening counts and the continuous capture of every authorised movement, work that no current record supported.

02

Our approach

• 15opportunities ranked
• 2options for the first scope
• 17requirements
• 177data fields

1. 01

   A paid audit of the operation. A 29-page AI Transformational Audit mapped 15 opportunities across sites, contractors, drawings, quantities and payments, each scored for business impact and implementation effort.

   AI Transformational Audit
2. 02

   A recommendation re-checked before anything was designed. Ting re-examined the scores, the data effort and each opportunity's inputs, then chose post-issue material accountability as the first standalone scope, with approved-drawing control as the simpler fallback if field capture proved impractical.

3. 03

   A first version kept deliberately small. Start with one site, one trade and one material family chosen by the developer. Record each issue against a signed issue form and a supervisor-confirmed outcome, keep existing authorisation and physical checks where they are, and give the site lead an owned exception whenever a balance does not reconcile.

4. 04

   Two Blueprints for the same scope. A dedicated application (40 pages) and a lighter Microsoft 365 register (32 pages), both built on the same 17 requirements and a 177-field data dictionary, with a two-page comparison in English and in Saudi Arabic so the decision is easy to make.

03

What was delivered, and how it will be judged

An audit and two Blueprints, handed over. Nothing has been implemented yet, so what decides the impact is set out below, not a result.

1. Delivered

   The audit, the two Blueprints and the options comparison. The developer holds a ranked view of 15 opportunities and two implementation-ready designs for the first one, so it can choose between a dedicated application and a lighter Microsoft 365 register.

2. What decides the impact

   The option the developer chooses, and how well field capture works on site. Nothing has been implemented yet, so no result is measured.

The Blueprints include time scenarios; they are analyst estimates that depend on the developer's own volumes, so they are not reported here as outcomes.