The traveling factory becomes measurable when the team agrees on what it means for work to pass through each production stage.
The production plan tells us how the work should move. The schedule tells us when it should happen. The resource load tells us how many people and man-hours it should require.
What is each portion of the work worth, and when can we claim it as complete?
Rules of credit connect the labor budget to observable progress. Without them, percent complete is opinion. They need to be established before the work begins.
Reconcile the budget with the production plan.
Work-package hours come from two directions. Top down, the estimate sets the hours available. Bottom up, the production model calculates the crew-days and man-hours the operation appears to require.
Compare the two before execution. A gap may expose missing scope, misplaced budget or a production assumption that needs to change. Do not quietly force one number to equal the other.
The estimate provides the labor constraint. The production model provides the operating requirement. Resource loading forces the two to meet.
Continue the eight-sequence example.
The eight-sequence example contains 1,505 tons and 3,087 model pieces. Grouping pieces into assemblies produces 2,642 crane picks. Hand iron is counted separately from the crane-installed work.
The classified picks require 56.61 erection crew-days. With a six-person raising gang working ten-hour shifts, the plan requires 3,397 erection man-hours.
| Sequence | Tons | Model pieces | Picks | Crew-days | Planned MH |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 278 | 297 | 271 | 8.95 | 537 |
| 2 | 251 | 287 | 263 | 7.79 | 467 |
| 3 | 224 | 306 | 283 | 7.03 | 422 |
| 4 | 207 | 339 | 307 | 6.54 | 392 |
| 5 | 181 | 364 | 319 | 5.96 | 358 |
| 6 | 154 | 402 | 337 | 5.90 | 354 |
| 7 | 121 | 461 | 371 | 6.26 | 376 |
| 8 | 89 | 631 | 491 | 8.18 | 491 |
| Total | 1,505 | 3,087 | 2,642 | 56.61 | 3,397 |
Sequence 8 contains 89 tons but requires 491 erection man-hours. Sequence 1 contains 278 tons and requires 537. Sequence 8 carries about one-third of the tonnage and needs about 91% of the raising-gang hours. Spreading the budget by tonnage alone would underweight that work.
Budget the work and show the gap.
Budget each sequence at its planned man-hours. Hold any remaining allowance on a separate contingency/unallocated line. That allowance earns no credit until it is assigned to defined work.
Sequence budgeted MH = Sequence planned MH
Unallocated MH = MAX(0, Estimate MH − Planned MH)
Unfunded MH = MAX(0, Planned MH − Estimate MH)
| Sequence | Planned MH | Budgeted MH |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 537 | 537 |
| 2 | 467 | 467 |
| 3 | 422 | 422 |
| 4 | 392 | 392 |
| 5 | 358 | 358 |
| 6 | 354 | 354 |
| 7 | 376 | 376 |
| 8 | 491 | 491 |
| Total | 3,397 | 3,397 |
| Erection budget reconciliation | MH |
|---|---|
| Estimate | 3,300 |
| Allocated to planned sequences | 3,397 |
| Contingency / unallocated | 0 |
| Unfunded plan | 97 |
Here, the plan requires 3,397 MH against a 3,300 MH estimate. There is no contingency available. Show the 97 MH shortfall and resolve it before approving the baseline. Proportionally cutting the sequence budgets does not remove the work.
Repeat the process for plumb and bolt, weld, deck and detail using the best available production basis for each.
Create one measurable scope for each operation and sequence.
For each sequence, create five measurable scopes: erect, plumb and bolt, weld, deck, and detail and closeout.
Those five scopes fit this example. On the job, define them around the contracted work and required acceptance, including studs, grating, handrail or other detail work where applicable. Operations can overlap; the package is complete only when all its required scope is finished and accepted.
Each record needs its production basis, planned crew-days and man-hours, budgeted man-hours, planned finish week, completion gate, weekly claimed completion and full completion week. This gives every operation a defined piece of the budget and an objective way to claim it.
Use completion gates and weekly claims.
Use 0/100 when the scope can finish within one reporting period. For longer scopes, claim progress in 25% increments: 0%, 25%, 50%, 75% or 100%. Use installed quantities, observable completion gates and field judgment against the defined scope. Keep the basis consistent, and claim 100% when the scope is complete.
| Operation | 100% completion gate |
|---|---|
| Erect | Sequence erected |
| Plumb and bolt | The sequence is plumbed and bolted |
| Welding | The defined weld scope is complete and accepted |
| Decking | The planned deck scope is installed |
| Detail and closeout | Hand iron, punch and closeout are complete |
Sequence 1 requires 8.95 crew-days and carries 537 budgeted erection hours. Waiting until the whole sequence is erected would hold earned hours at zero across more than one weekly reporting period. A partial claim lets the report follow the work as columns are set and beams are hung.
| Claimed completion | Earned MH |
|---|---|
| 0% | 0 |
| 25% | 134 |
| 50% | 268 |
| 75% | 403 |
| 100% | 537 |
Hours are rounded for display. The calculations retain their precision.
Update the claims weekly.
Meet weekly to update the work and run the report. The daily reports already describe the progression. The weekly call brings that information into the progress model.
Earned MH = Budgeted MH × Claimed completion
Summarize the claims by operation and sequence to show earned hours and remaining work. Keep each week's claims so the next update does not rewrite an earlier report.
Update the weekly claims
Update each operation in 25% increments. Claim 100% when its defined scope is complete.
Putting rules of credit to work
On a large microchip fab project, we had a box-truss operation with several stages of work. Planar trusses were preassembled, stood in jigs and connected into boxes, painted, delivered to the erection area, and erected, with infill following behind. Two cranes were working on opposite sides of the project. With so much effort between loose pieces and completed structure, the team was having trouble determining how far along we were. Claiming progress had become subjective.
I worked with the project manager and superintendent to agree on rules of credit for the operation. We used the model to quantify the work and fed those quantities and completion gates into the schedule the project manager was already maintaining. We did not track production in all the detail shown in the example model on this site. The core was connecting model quantities, the schedule and agreed completion gates into a weekly update the team could use.
Each week, we would get on a call and I would share the report on screen. We would go through the sequences, asking how the work was progressing and updating the inputs from what the superintendent and field team told me. If something wasn’t clear, we would circle back. They could see the inputs as I made them and correct me when I got something wrong. Shortly after the meeting, I would publish the updated report to the executive team and field team. We used it to review where manpower demand was building, where we had more people than the upcoming work required, and whether preassembly needed additional help. Tracking deliveries also helped us understand the inventory available to keep both cranes supplied. My contribution was connecting the quantities, schedule and field updates; the project manager and superintendent brought the operating knowledge and made the decisions.
Phase 1 went well, and we carried the same process into Phase 2. The team had an established way to update progress, review resource needs and plan the work ahead. Repeating that process made the operation more predictable.
This is still a physical-progress report. Before execution, the team needs to agree on the budget distribution, the value and completion gate for each scope, the status method and the treatment of incomplete work.
- Production model
- Crew-days
- Planned MH
- Budget allocation
- Completion gates
- Progress claim
Once the completion gates are consistent, the production history can show where work is accumulating and which operation is limiting completed-work throughput. The next note uses those gates to find the bottleneck.