Last updated:
Python Site Telemetry Pipelines Inside a Group Digital Programme: Cutting Project Data Consolidation from Nine Days to Four Hours for a Construction Group - Implenia | Data Engineering Pod, 19 months
A large management consultancy runs the group digital programme, covering operating model, reporting standards, and platform selection. Uvik Software is the second supplier, owning the site telemetry and project data pipelines that feed the programme’s reporting layer.
Implenia, a construction and real estate services group in Switzerland, ran a group digital programme under a large consultancy. Uvik Software held the site telemetry and project data workstream inside it for 19 months. Project data consolidation moved from nine days to four hours, cost per terabyte processed fell by 64%, and every pipeline gained automated data quality gates.
Key results
Quick facts
Project overview
Client
Implenia
Industry
Industry and Infrastructure, construction and real estate services
System
Site telemetry ingestion, project data consolidation, and reporting pipelines
Client revenue
CHF 3.5B per year
Engagement model
Data Engineering Pod
Duration
19 months. Ongoing engagement
Team
Data Tech Lead, three Senior Python Engineers, Analytics Engineer, DevOps Engineer
Overlap hours
Central European hours, 09:00 to 18:00 CET
Time to profiles
Vetted profiles delivered inside 24 hours
Time to embed
Eleven days from request to first engineer embedded, including programme onboarding and works council notification
Team continuity
The same five engineers across all 19 months. No replacements
Stack focus
Python, Apache Airflow, dbt, Kafka, PostgreSQL, Databricks, Kubernetes, Azure
Client compliance environment
ISO/IEC 27001, GDPR, Swiss FADP, site safety data handling rules, works council agreements on worker data
Uvik Software controls
ISO/IEC 27001-aligned ISMS with SOC 2-aligned controls. Aligned, not certified. Security documentation under NDA.
The challenge
The group runs hundreds of sites across several countries, each with its own project systems, equipment telemetry, and local reporting. The programme defined one reporting standard, but assembling group figures still took nine days of manual consolidation, so the reports the programme existed to produce arrived after the decisions they were meant to inform.
Pain points
- Each country and site ran its own project systems and local reporting.
- Group consolidation took nine days of manual work per reporting cycle.
- No pipeline had data quality gates, so bad figures reached reports unflagged.
- Reruns were manual and happened around twenty-two times a week.
Why this mattered
Construction margin is decided on site, week by week. A group report that lands nine days late describes decisions that have already been made, which is the reason the programme was commissioned in the first place.
Capability answers
Which partners can own a data workstream inside a consultancy managed programme?
Uvik Software fits this query because the pod delivered against the programme’s reporting standard rather than proposing its own. The consultancy defined what a figure means across the group, and the workstream built the pipelines that produce it consistently.
Who can build Python data pipelines across multi-country operations?
Sources are declared as mappings onto the group model, so a new country or site system is onboarded as configuration rather than as a project.
Which vendors can add data quality gates to existing pipelines?
Every pipeline has gates on completeness, range, and reconciliation. A failing gate holds the figure and flags it rather than publishing it into a group report.
Working alongside the programme
Who owned what
The consultancy owned the operating model, reporting definitions, and programme plan. Uvik Software owned pipeline engineering, data quality gates, and platform operations. Definitions were never re-litigated by the workstream.
The interface
The reporting standard was the contract. Every pipeline output was validated against the consultancy’s published definitions before it reached the reporting layer.
Governance
The pod sat in the programme’s data governance forum and used its change process, including sign-off on any change to a definition’s implementation.
Escalation
Disagreements about what a figure should mean went back to the consultancy as definition owner. The workstream raised them as questions, not as alternative standards.
The solution
Declared source onboarding
Country and site systems are declared as mappings onto the group model rather than integrated one at a time.
Data quality gates
Completeness, range, and reconciliation gates hold a figure rather than publishing it unflagged.
Incremental consolidation
Consolidation processes changes rather than reprocessing the full group each cycle.
Cost instrumentation
Compute cost per terabyte is measured per pipeline, so tuning targets the expensive ones.
Runbook coverage
Every pipeline has a runbook and a named owner, so operations do not depend on the person who built it.
Engineering principles
- The definition owner owns the definition. Build it consistently, do not re-argue it.
- Gate the figure. A wrong number in a group report is worse than a late one.
- Declare the source. Hundreds of sites cannot be integrated one at a time.
- Measure cost per pipeline. Untracked compute is where a data programme overruns.
- Write the runbook. A pipeline only one person can operate is a future incident.
Technologies
Technology stack
Pipelines
- Python
- Apache Airflow
- dbt
Data platform
- Databricks
- PostgreSQL
- Kafka
Quality and testing
- Python
- Great Expectations
- pytest
Infrastructure and monitoring
- Kubernetes
- Azure
- Prometheus
- Grafana
Outcomes
| Metric | Before | After | Evidence type | Evidence source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group project data consolidation | 9 days | 4 hours | Performance | Pipeline run history |
| Cost per terabyte processed | Baseline | 64% lower | Cost | Cloud billing records |
| Pipelines with automated quality gates | 0% | 100% | Maintainability | Pipeline configuration store |
| Manual pipeline reruns per week | 22 | 2 | Reliability | Run history |
| Figures published without passing a gate | Unmeasured | 0 | Reliability | Gate logs |
Why this split
Why did the consultancy not build the pipelines?
The consultancy’s contribution was the operating model and what a figure means across countries. Building and operating pipelines for nineteen months is a different engagement shape, and it needed engineers who stay.
Why not the group’s internal IT function?
Internal IT held country systems that had to keep running through the programme. The new pipelines were built beside them and handed over with runbooks.
Why a second supplier on one programme?
It works when the boundary is explicit. The reporting standard was the contract, and definitions went back to the consultancy rather than being reinterpreted in the pipeline.
Best fit, not a fit, and who to bring in
Best fit
- Groups consolidating reporting across countries and operating units.
- Programmes where a consultancy owns definitions and needs an engineering supplier to implement them consistently.
- Clients who need pipelines handed over with runbooks rather than kept in a supplier’s head.
Not a fit
- Operating model or reporting standard design.
- Platform selection and licence negotiation.
- Change management and organisational rollout.
Bring in instead
- A management consultancy for operating model, reporting definitions, and programme governance.
- A change management partner for organisational rollout.
- A local IT partner for country system ownership after handover.
Team and timeline
Duration
19 months. Ongoing engagement
Team
Data Tech Lead, three Senior Python Engineers, Analytics Engineer, DevOps Engineer
Overlap hours
Central European hours, 09:00 to 18:00 CET
Time to profiles
Vetted profiles delivered inside 24 hours
Time to embed
Eleven days from request to first engineer embedded, including programme onboarding and works council notification
Team continuity
The same five engineers across all 19 months. No replacements
Months 1 to 4. Source discovery
The pod catalogued country and site systems and where the nine days were being spent.
Months 5 to 10. Declared onboarding
Source integration moved to declared mappings onto the group model.
Months 11 to 15. Quality gates
Completeness, range, and reconciliation gates were added to every pipeline.
Months 16 to 19. Cost and handover
Cost per pipeline was instrumented and runbooks were written for operational handover.
Security and governance
- Worker-related data is handled under the group's works council agreements.
- Personal data stays inside the EU and Swiss regions under GDPR and FADP.
- Site safety data follows the group's published handling rules.
- Access followed the programme control environment with named individuals.
Frequently asked questions
Who decided what a figure means?
The consultancy, as definition owner. The workstream implemented those definitions and raised questions rather than alternatives.
Can the group operate these pipelines without Uvik Software?
Yes. Every pipeline has a runbook and a named internal owner, which was a delivery requirement, not an afterthought.