Proceed when information supports the next decision; useful timing shows dependencies rather than only desired dates.
Initial phase: a brief everyone understands
Define use, users, budget and horizon before drawing a solution. Our editorial sequence starts with essential needs and acceptable alternatives so professionals assess the same project. MinVivienda's sector framework supplies planning and development context; it cannot turn an idea into building rights. Date and version the brief, identifying who approves changes. Where several people participate, expose disagreements instead of hiding them behind an attractive drawing. The phase produces enough description for initial investigation rather than final design. Ask which information could reject an alternative early. Identify operating conditions such as access and utilities as well. A clear brief reduces work addressing different assumptions and helps determine when a commercial proposal deserves further study before money is committed to fabrication or works lacking sufficient supporting information for the intended site and project.
Assessment phase: questions that can stop the project
Connect land, documents, proposed use and physical conditions through appropriate commissions. Our sequence distinguishes personal decisions, professional conclusions and institutional responses so one does not replace everything else. Planning information and NSR-10 Title H studies address different subjects; coordinate questions before commissioning. A favourable visit should not become complete feasibility. Ask the team to identify decisive uncertainties and proportionate work needed to resolve them at the idea's current stage. If an essential incompatibility appears, stopping or revising may be appropriate instead of paying for detail. This phase should explain why continuation is justified and under which assumptions. Keep pending matters dependent on another organisation. That discipline supports timing acknowledging missing evidence rather than presenting every task as ready to begin simultaneously regardless of dependencies or the maturity of information available for the project.
Design phase: coordinate versions and interfaces
Assign responsibility for integrating site information, architecture, structure and relevant installations. Title H relates geotechnical investigation to the project; recommendations must reach people making dependent decisions. Our coordination record identifies deliverables, versions, responsibilities and prior inputs without imposing a universal organisation chart. If a supplier provides only system information, ask who connects it with foundations, access and utilities. Do not let disciplines proceed against different siting versions without reviewing changes. This phase should define work and understandable budget scopes alongside public actions identified by the professional. A render can support discussion but cannot prove coordination or compliance. Ask which matters remain provisional and what decisions would change when new evidence arrives. Maintaining that distinction prevents a preliminary drawing becoming, through habit, a definitive purchase or construction instruction unsupported by the team's current information and agreed design process.
Budget phase: compare a shared result
Define the state to be commissioned and separate studies, works, supply, transport, assembly and operation. Our editorial comparison marks included, excluded and pending rather than summing offers with incompatible scopes. Law 1480 addresses commercial information within its scope; request clear specifications and conditions where relevant without inferring a universal obligation from a proposal's name. If technical scope is missing, identify the input enabling pricing instead of inventing a number. Build a cash sequence showing spending before use as well. An omitted item is not a saving. The phase should identify affordable alternatives and remaining uncertainty for each. Budget review may require changing the brief or siting. Record the decision and return it to design so the team does not continue working from an abandoned version while commercial offers already describe another solution for the intended project.
Procurement phase: responsibilities before commitments
Once proposals are comparable, request legal review of scope, payments, changes and handover. Our commercial sequence uses milestones with evidence and dependencies rather than a universal advance percentage. Assign every exclusion to a proposed responsible party or retain it as pending before calling the project complete. Record required outside action and timing without describing a submitted request as approved. Law 1480 contextualises information and objective conditions in consumer relationships; particular application needs review. Identify documents and instructions to be supplied and who handles clarification as well. The phase should explain what is purchased, the expected result and conditions preceding the next commitment. A fabrication offer cannot replace all site works. An assignment may be limited and useful where remaining interfaces have clearly identified responsibility and budget rather than being assumed to belong to another participant.
Execution phase: communicate changes before proceeding
Have the team define supervision, coordination and checks appropriate to the works. Our record identifies observed changes, the professional assessing them and authorised decisions without turning the owner into technical director. If conditions differ from assumptions, consult before ordering an improvised solution. Title H connects subsurface information with project decisions; relevant changes must reach those responsible. Coordinate deliveries with site readiness so components do not arrive while an essential interface is missing. Completing one item should not imply completion of everything. Each work needs evidence and acceptance under the agreed scope. Retain versions and clarifications instead of conflicting instructions across several channels. The aim is not bureaucracy but ensuring the next activity receives understood conditions and nobody executes against an assumption already known to be superseded by newer information concerning the site or the design.
Handover phase: receive operation and documents
Agree checks and documents accompanying each delivery with relevant professional participation. Our review distinguishes receipt of a structure, operation of installations and applicable utility responses. EPM describes a connection process; a visible point or submitted request cannot by itself establish final project connection. Ask the responsible person to explain outstanding matters and limits before accepting a general home ready label. Keep use instructions, maintenance information and contacts in a file accessible to the eventual operator. Record correction scope and responsibility instead of assuming a completion photograph removes them. The phase should support intended use with awareness of conditions and remaining matters. Review which information needs updating after execution changes as well. Delivering a large folder cannot replace explanation of its contents or identify which document corresponds to each system actually received under the agreed scope.
Review the sequence when a dependency changes
Imagine a supplier offering fabrication while foundations and logistics remain undefined. Our sequence does not declare every parallel activity wrong; it asks the team what can proceed with adequate scope certainty and what depends on missing inputs. If siting changes after manufacture, responsible parties may need to assess consequences across several items. Timing should reveal that relationship before commitment. Resolving a focused enquiry or agreeing appropriate conditions with advice may be preferable to accelerating a date without information. The final decision brings together the current brief, evidence, budget and next tasks. It guarantees no surprise free construction, but explains why progress is justified and who resolves change. That is the practical function of phases: coordinated decisions rather than allowing commercial urgency to replace technical, institutional or contractual questions still necessary to the intended development of the parcel.
Project route with progress gates
Hypothetical editable coordination timetable. Weeks illustrate workflow order rather than official deadlines or promised duration. One outstanding response can move every dependent milestone.
| Milestone and hypothetical window | Responsibility and expected output | Progress gate |
|---|---|---|
| H0. Brief; week 1 | Buyer and team to appoint: written purpose, initial scope, resources and rejection criteria. | Everyone works from the same property and programme; conflicting needs are clarified before commissioning studies. |
| H1. Identification and background; weeks 2–3 | Lawyer and information owners: documents, discrepancies and specific questions, without treating receipt as certification. | Decide to proceed, clarify or reject with recorded conclusions and limitations. |
| H2. Feasibility and studies; illustrative weeks 4–6 | Technical team: study scopes, use and utility enquiries and revised budget. External responses have their own timetable. | Do not assign a firm date to a stage dependent on an outstanding response. |
| H3. Scope and contracting; date to agree | Promoter, advisers and supplier: reviewed proposal, deliverables, exclusions, payments and procedures. | Identify relevant prerequisites and responsibilities before assuming an order or construction start. |
| H4. Execution; agreed programme | Contracted responsible parties: design versions, controls, records and a process for changes and observations. | A change affecting scope, ground or system returns to the relevant professional and budget. |
| H5. Acceptance and operation; milestones to confirm | Owner and supplier: inventory, documentation, outstanding items, maintenance and later support under the agreement. | Separate physical handover, checks and accepted outstanding matters; do not close the file merely because of one signature. |
Sources & bibliography
Read the full document, its date, amendments and scope. The editorial review date describes this page; it does not establish an authorisation or a specific answer about your plot or financing.
- 01MinVivienda: Decreto 1077 de 2015www.minvivienda.gov.co · Official reference page for the sectoral framework; application to an individual case requires checking amendments and the competent authority.
- 02NSR-10 Título H, copia oficial IDRDwww.idrd.gov.co · Geotechnical investigations and their relationship to the project; check applicable amendments. No investigation methods or quantities are prescribed here.
- 03Cancillería: Ley 1480 de 2011www.cancilleria.gov.co · Articles 23, 24, 29 and 30: information and advertising in consumer relationships; applicability to an individual case needs review.
- 04EPM: aguas para constructor y urbanizadorwww.epm.com.co · Feasibility-to-connection process and geoportal; they do not establish availability for an individual property.