In an increasingly regulated and competitive market, companies face the constant challenge of keeping their document processes compliant with legislation, while also seeking efficiency, autonomy and control. Digital document management platforms have emerged as powerful tools to meet these demands. However, one feature is often overlooked when choosing these solutions: the freedom to validate, in other words, the freedom to decide who validates the documentation.
In this technical article, we explore why this freedom matters and how it gives a strategic advantage to companies that work with subcontractors and with demanding health, safety and tax compliance processes. We also discuss the risks of choosing platforms that force companies to outsource document validation, and how AISP-GEDOC addresses this challenge.
1. What does validating documentation mean?
Validating documentation means reviewing and confirming that the documents submitted by employees or subcontractors meet the required legal and contractual criteria. This process applies, for example, to tax documents, training certificates, insurance policies and medical examinations, among others.
In many companies, this validation is carried out by in-house specialists, usually from the safety, human resources or legal departments. However, as digitalisation has grown, digital document management platforms have started to support this process, automating the receipt, notification and verification of documents.
2. The question of freedom: Who should validate?
Yet some digital platforms also require clients to hire document validation services delivered by the platform provider’s own teams. This means that:
The client cannot choose who validates;
Documents are reviewed by third parties who do not always know the company’s specific criteria;
Communication between the validator and the service provider can be slow and impersonal;
Control of the process lies outside the company.
As a result, this model significantly limits the company’s ability to adapt document review to its own needs and operational specifics.
3. The advantages of validation by experienced specialists chosen by the client
On the other hand, letting the client decide who validates the documentation (in-house or with support from specialist firms) is a more flexible model that is aligned with the organisation’s strategic goals. More importantly, it ensures that validation is carried out by highly qualified professionals with practical experience and in-depth knowledge of the sector’s documentation requirements.
The main advantages of the freedom to validate include:
Full control of the process: the company knows better than anyone the criteria that should apply to validation.
Validation by high-performing specialists: professionals with practical experience in audits, subcontractor management and legal requirements ensure accurate and effective reviews.
Fit with local realities: practices and legislation vary between sectors and countries, so a generic approach may be ineffective.
Faster resolution of pending issues: validation by in-house specialists or specialist partners allows quicker, more effective communication.
Trust and security: keeping the process under control reduces risks related to data protection and misinterpretation.
The option to outsource to trusted partners: if the company chooses to outsource, it can do so with organisations or consultants it already knows and that deliver a high level of service.
4. The risks of platforms with mandatory validation
Nevertheless, platforms that require clients to buy the document validation service create technological and operational dependency. Although this approach may seem practical at first glance, it involves:
Recurring and often hidden costs;
Less customisation of the process;
Limited ability to adapt to internal or external changes;
A potential conflict of interest between the client and the platform provider;
Reduced autonomy and greater contractual vulnerability;
Validation by generalist teams with no knowledge of the sector or the client’s reality.
Furthermore, in sectors such as construction, energy and industry, where documentation requirements are often tailored by client, site or contract, standardised external validation can lead to errors and non-conformities.
5. The AISP-GEDOC approach
At AISP-GEDOC, we believe that technology should serve the client’s strategy, not the other way round. That is why we work exclusively with platforms that guarantee:
Freedom in validation: the client can choose to validate in-house or appoint trusted external partners, with high-performing specialists and proven experience;
Customised configuration of document acceptance rules and criteria;
Distinct user profiles: with permissions adapted to each participant’s role (administrator, contractor, auditor, etc.);
Ongoing user training, through GEDOC Academy, to ensure effective and autonomous use of the platform.
6. Expected results
Companies that choose platforms offering the freedom to validate can:
Reduce the average document acceptance time;
Reduce non-conformities found in external audits;
Improve communication between technical teams and contractors;
Strengthen their contractual position with large international clients;
Ensure that validation is carried out by professionals with in-depth knowledge of the required criteria.
7. How to confirm that a platform guarantees the freedom to validate
During the selection phase, the freedom to validate is not always obvious. For this reason, it is worth asking the provider direct questions and requesting written answers in the proposal.
- Can the in-house team carry out validation, with no mandatory extra costs?
- Is it possible to assign validation to an external company chosen by the client?
- Can the acceptance criteria be configured by contractor type, site or client?
- Are different profiles and permissions available for validators?
- Is the decision history recorded, and can it be exported?
- If the client changes validator, are the data and history kept?
This way, the company avoids discovering, after implementation, that it is locked into a validation model it did not choose.
8. Practical example: Changing the validation model
Imagine an industrial company using a platform where validation must be carried out by the provider’s team. Over time, the safety team realises that the provider accepts some documents without applying internal criteria, such as specific training for work in confined spaces.
Because the platform does not allow another validator, the company has to recheck these cases, which doubles the workload. Later, when choosing a new solution, it makes the freedom to validate a requirement. Next, it validates critical documents in-house and hands administrative validation to a specialist partner. Consequently, it gains control over the criteria and reduces repeated work.
9. Freedom to validate and legal liability
It is important to remember that responsibility for worker safety and subcontractor control still lies with the contracting company. Therefore, even when it outsources validation, the company must define the criteria, monitor the results and keep evidence of its decisions. For this reason, choosing who validates is not a technical detail, but a decision with legal and contractual impact.
10. Indicators to assess validation
Regardless of who validates, the company should monitor the quality of the process with clear indicators. Examples include the average time between upload and decision, the percentage of documents approved on first submission and the number of decisions corrected after review. In addition, non-conformities found in audits show whether validators apply the criteria correctly. This way, the company can compare validators, correct deviations and justify the choice of the most suitable model. Likewise, contractors benefit from faster and more consistent responses. Finally, management gains objective data to renegotiate service contracts and set realistic targets for the following year.
Frequently asked questions
Is in-house validation always better than external validation?
Not necessarily. What matters most is that the company can choose. In many cases, a mixed model works best: the in-house team validates critical documents and a specialist partner handles the remaining volume.
How can you ensure that different validators apply the same criteria?
Through written criteria, examples of accepted and rejected documents and periodic sample reviews. The platform should also record the reason for each decision.
Does the freedom to validate increase costs?
On the contrary, it allows you to compare alternatives and choose the model with the best balance between cost and quality, instead of accepting an imposed service. In addition, it makes it easier to change partner whenever the service does not match what was agreed.
Conclusion: The freedom to validate as an advantage
The freedom to validate is a competitive advantage that many companies still overlook when choosing a document management platform. Choosing a solution that imposes external validation can undermine efficiency, compliance and trust in the process.
In contrast, companies that take control of their document processes, with validation by experienced specialists aligned with their criteria, gain autonomy, adaptability and responsiveness.
At AISP-GEDOC, we help our clients choose and implement flexible platforms that respect their structure, strategy and autonomy. After all, true digital transformation only happens when technology adapts to people, not the other way round.
Read also: Which documents will expire in the next 30 days? The answer should not require an Excel spreadsheet and Worker documents: Expiry dates, control and continuous monitoring.
To find out about legal health and safety obligations at work, visit the ACT, the Portuguese Authority for Working Conditions.