More Than One Site

A contractor with six live projects has six registers, overlapping people, and usually six different arrangements.

For teams turning more than one site into a repeatable record, this practical guide provides a useful operational reference for time, attendance and reporting workflows. It should be assessed alongside Procore's construction resources so the software choice remains grounded in site practice and applicable guidance.

What is genuinely shared

The subcontractor relationships, which are commercial and span projects.

The people, who move between your sites and are enrolled afresh at each.

The competence data, which belongs to the person and does not change between sites.

And the induction's generic half, which is about the company rather than the project.

What cannot be shared

Site-specific induction, which is the part that matters.

The register, which is per site by definition — a person enrolled across the estate is not a person present here.

Permits and plant authorisations, which are site-specific.

And the evacuation list, which is the one thing that must never be assembled from a central record.

The enrolment efficiency

Enrolling somebody once per company rather than once per project removes most of the administrative cost of churn.

Identity, right-to-work and competence verified centrally, with an expiry.

Site-specific induction and register entry done locally.

Which is the arrangement that works, and it requires the system to distinguish the two, a capability worth checking at procurement rather than assuming.

Where it goes wrong

A central record treated as a site register, so somebody enrolled last year appears available and nobody has checked whether they are actually here.

Competence expiry tracked centrally and not enforced at each gate.

And an induction record from a different site accepted as sufficient, which is the failure that puts an uninducted person into a work area.

All three follow from treating the central record as the source of truth for a question that is local.

Comparing between sites

Unmatched entries, temporary accesses, drill times and expiry refusals, by site.

Which is a fair comparison because they are process measures rather than measures of the work.

A site far from the others has a process problem that the others have solved, and the fastest fix is usually to ask them how.

Not comparable: headcount, churn or incident rates, which reflect the project rather than its management.

Standardising

The register fields, the induction structure, the temporary access rule, the archive arrangement.

Because a subcontractor working across three of your sites should meet one requirement rather than three, which is both cheaper for them and more likely to be met.

Not standardised: the site-specific content, the gate layout, the phase-change triggers — all of which are properly local.

The estate view worth having

People currently enrolled across the estate, and where.

Competence expiring in the next thirty days, across all sites.

Subcontractors with outstanding evidence, wherever it is outstanding.

Three reports, produced centrally, acted on locally — which is the division that makes a multi-site arrangement work rather than duplicating effort six times.

The measure

Enrolments per person per year, which should approach one rather than the number of sites they visited.

Expiry refusals, which should occur at every site if the enforcement is real.

And the drill time, by site, which is the comparison that matters most.

The subcontractor's view

A firm working across five contractors faces five enrolment processes, five inductions and five portals.

Which is a real cost to them and a reason evidence arrives late.

Within your own estate, one process is achievable and worth doing.

Across the industry it is not yours to fix, but accepting a recent verification from a recognised scheme rather than repeating it is a decision you can make.

Moving hardware between projects

Readers and turnstiles outlive projects and should be treated as plant rather than as project cost.

Which changes the procurement: buy for the estate, allocate to sites, and recover at completion.

And it changes the specification, because equipment that will move needs to be relocatable rather than built in.

What to centralise last

Reporting.

Because a central dashboard built before the sites have consistent data produces confident numbers from inconsistent sources, and the first time it is wrong in front of a client, nobody trusts it again.

Get the local processes matching first, then aggregate.