Construction projects bring together dozens of organizations, each with their own tools, processes, and compliance obligations. Without the right collaboration model, information gets stuck in silos, communication slows down, and critical details slip through the cracks.
The result? Costly delays, rework, and risk.
Historically, the industry has leaned on two approaches:
Both approaches try to solve the problem, but each comes with serious drawbacks. That’s why ProjectTeam introduced a new approach: the connected collaboration model.
Unlike the older models, connected collaboration is built to give every stakeholder ownership of project data, streamline communication, and protect information inside a secure, compliant environment. In this post, we’ll explore the differences between these three models and explain why connected collaboration is the best path forward, especially for projects that demand the highest levels of security and compliance, like those requiring FedRAMP authorization.
| Feature | Hub-to-Spoke | Hub-to-Hub | Connected Collaboration |
| Structure | A single hub organization controls the system; other stakeholders are limited spokes with secondary access. | Multiple independent hubs (each company’s system) connected through integrations or APIs. | A shared environment where all stakeholders connect directly and share equal ownership of project data. |
| Communication | Communication flows only through the central hub, limiting visibility for spoke organizations. | Data syncs between hubs; communication may lag and require mapping between systems. | Real-time collaboration across all participants without duplication. |
| Speed & Efficiency | Can be slow and inefficient. Non-hub stakeholders often must re-enter data into their own systems. | Slower and more complex due to integration of "app" dependencies and reconciliation. | Fast and efficient since everyone works in the same system on the same data set. |
| Resilience | The hub is a single point of failure; if the hub system goes down, spokes lose access. | Dependent on integration reliability; if one hub fails or mapping changes, collaboration is disrupted. | No single point of failure; data integrity is maintained across all participants inside the secure boundary. |
| Collaboration | One-sided: hub organization dictates structure, processes, and ownership of data. | Limited: each hub prioritizes its own needs; collaboration depends on integration quality. | Flexible and secure: each organization customizes forms and workflows while still working on shared data. |
| Security | Hub controls compliance, but spokes often must duplicate data in non-compliant tools. | Data moves between multiple systems, increasing security and compliance risks. | Keeps all data within a single FedRAMP-authorized boundary, eliminating leakage risks. |
In this model, one organization acts as the central “hub” that owns the project data. All other stakeholders, including contractors, subs, architects, consultants, are “spokes” who must log into the hub’s system to view or contribute information.
Challenges:
Most legacy construction management systems have followed this hub-to-spoke approach. If you’ve ever felt like you were working inside someone else’s system, with little control over your own data, you’ve experienced the limitations firsthand. While this model may work on smaller, one-sided projects, it falls short when multiple organizations need equal footing and secure, compliant collaboration.
The hub-to-hub model attempts to bridge multiple systems by connecting different organizational hubs. Each company maintains its own “hub” platform, and the systems exchange data through integrations or APIs.
Challenges:
While hub-to-hub is an improvement over the one-sided hub-to-spoke model, it still creates silos and exposes projects to data inconsistencies. If you’ve ever been frustrated by data that doesn’t match between systems, or by integrations that break after an update, then you’ve experienced the pitfalls of the hub-to-hub model. It tries to solve the imbalance of hub-to-spoke, but often replaces it with delays, long load times, inconsistencies, and high security risks.
ProjectTeam introduces a fundamentally different approach: connected collaboration. Instead of one company “owning” the system or stitching together multiple hubs, ProjectTeam connects all project participants into a shared environment with shared ownership of project data.
Key Features:
This isn’t just collaboration, it’s a true single source of truth that adapts to each stakeholder while keeping everyone connected to the same, secure dataset.
The future of construction management is about compliance and security. On projects requiring FedRAMP authorization, contractors and agencies can’t afford systems that force data to be copied, exported, or moved outside the authorized boundary. ProjectTeam’s connected collaboration model eliminates that risk by keeping all project data inside a single, FedRAMP-authorized environment. This means:
The hub-to-spoke model locks stakeholders into someone else’s system. The hub-to-hub model adds costly integrations and security risks. But with ProjectTeam’s connected collaboration model, everyone on the project can work together on a secure, compliant, and truly shared platform.
For organizations delivering today’s complex, high-stakes projects ProjectTeam provides a better way to collaborate and the peace of mind that data is protected every step of the way.
Ready to move beyond outdated models of collaboration? Schedule a demo of ProjectTeam today to transform your project delivery.