Worked example 01 · Commercial electrical & HVAC

The crew arrives.
The work is not ready.

A schedule commits people to a date. A readiness check confirms they can actually work when they arrive.

$32,880

Potential net savings / year
After recurring control costs.

Research-based composite. Business figures, savings and risk ratings are modeled assumptions. Proposed controls have not been validated with a business.

The bottleneck

Where the work gets stuck.

The proposed constraint is the handoff from planned work to confirmed work. Dispatch uses dates without a common acceptance test for materials, access, approvals, and predecessor completion. Hiring more installers would increase the number of people exposed to the same blocked starts.

The proposed improvement

Change how the work moves.

Confirm materials, access and approvals before dispatch. Give crews a ready-work backup plan.

60 to 30Lost crew-hours / week · modeled

20 to 10Paid overtime hours / week · modeled

Read the business situation

The dispatcher sends crews using last week's project schedule. Purchasing considers material ready when a purchase order is placed. The foreman learns at the job site that a delivery is incomplete, an access area is blocked, or a predecessor has not finished. Crews wait, split work, or make another trip. Overtime later in the week hides the original coordination failure.

48 employees, six five-person field crews, several active commercial projects. All company characteristics and quantities are scenario assumptions.

Follow the work.

Proposed workflow: make the next action and responsibility explicit.

01Look aheadCheck constraints

02Confirm readinessEvidence by 2 PM

03Release / reassignDispatcher owns choice

04Execute workForeman logs variance

05Review causesUpdate next plan

What needs to change

Two-week constraint reviewPM + purchasing identify material, drawing, access and predecessor constraints. Each has an owner and need-by date.

Day-before release gateBy 2 PM, foreman confirms usable workfront; warehouse confirms complete critical kit; PM confirms approvals. Evidence is attached.

Dispatch exception ruleDispatch releases green work. Amber work needs a documented partial-work plan. Red work is reassigned or escalated before travel.

Same-day variance logForeman records lost person-hours, cause code and recovery action. Supervisor reviews causes, not individual blame.

How to verify the bottleneck

Hypothesis	Evidence to inspect	Proposed test
Material exists only on paper	Compare PO, supplier promise, physical receipt and issued quantity.	Ten upcoming starts; verify kit against work package.
Predecessor or access incomplete	Compare GC readiness confirmation with actual first work time.	Walk one workfront a day before mobilization.
Last-minute changes bypass dispatch	Trace who learns of changed start dates and when.	Audit two weeks of schedule changes and acknowledgments.
Workload is a real labor constraint	Check blocked hours against paid overtime and completed quantities.	If ready work still exceeds staffed hours, reassess capacity.

The capacity calculation

Measure	Calculation	Modeled implication
Field delay load	6 crews x 5 people x 2 hours/week	60 person-hours/week
Target delay load	Same crews x 1 hour/week	30 person-hours/week
Capacity released	60 less 30	30 person-hours/week
Cash conversion assumed	10 of the 30 hours replace paid overtime	Remaining 20 hours not monetized

Example: day-before crew release board

Work package	Readiness evidence	Release decision
E-104 / Level 2 rough-in	Kit received; access confirmed; drawing C	GREEN - release five-person crew
E-105 / switchgear terminations	Equipment delivery unconfirmed	RED - reassign crew to E-104
E-106 / exterior supports	Only east area accessible	AMBER - PM approves limited scope

The implementation plan

Days 1-7PM + dispatcher

Observe ten starts, baseline losses, agree release criteria.

Evidence: Ten work packages with cause-coded baseline.

Days 8-14Warehouse + foremen

Pilot release gate with two crews and ready-work backup list.

Evidence: At least 90% of pilot starts have evidence before dispatch.

Days 15-30Operations manager

Expand only after false-green causes are corrected.

Evidence: Four weeks of release, delay and payroll records.

Days 31-60PM + analyst

Validate recurring savings; set weekly risk review.

Evidence: Comparable output, fewer paid hours and invoice evidence.

What to measure

Measure	Definition	Target	Owner / review
Ready starts	Evidence-complete starts / all planned starts	At least 95%	Dispatcher / daily
Delay load	Lost person-hours / crew-week	10 to 5	Foreman / daily
Overtime	Paid hours caused by readiness problems	20 to 10 weekly	Payroll + PM / weekly
False-green starts	Released starts that encounter known blockers	Zero; investigate each	Ops manager / weekly

How to validate the result

Use four baseline weeks and four pilot weeks with comparable crew size, job phase and installed quantity. Reconcile all reduced overtime to payroll. Treat a reduction in waiting without a reduced payment as capacity improvement only.

Show the financial effect.

This models avoidable operating expenditure. Time released without a reduced payment is reported separately as capacity.

Financial line	USD
Overtime avoided	$31,680
Emergency delivery cost avoided	$3,000
Gross annual benefit	$34,680
Recurring annual control cost	$1,800
Annual net run rate	$32,880
First-year net benefit	$20,900

What if the improvement is smaller?

Adjust the share of the modeled improvement achieved. Control and setup costs stay the same.

Modeled improvement achieved100%

ANNUAL NET ESTIMATE$32,880FIRST YEAR AFTER SETUP$20,900

First year: 10 benefit months, less the full setup allowance. Results are illustrative, not a guarantee.

Full overtime payroll cost is saved only if the paid hours actually disappear while output, quality and normal paid hours remain comparable. Fixed salaries and ordinary paid idle time are not counted as cash savings.

Baseline inputs and calculations

These inputs describe the 100% modeled case. The slider changes the share of the proposed improvement achieved.

Illustrative assumption	Value	Units
Overtime before	20	hours/week
Overtime after	10	hours/week
Avoidable overtime cost	66	USD/hour
Operating weeks	48	weeks/year
Emergency deliveries before	4	per month
Emergency deliveries after	2	per month
Delivery premium	125	USD/delivery
Calendar months	12	months/year
Recurring control cost	150	USD/month
One-time implementation allowance	6,500	USD
Benefit months in first year	10	months

Overtime avoided: (20 - 10) x $66 x 48

Emergency delivery cost avoided: (4 - 2) x $125 x 12

Gross annual benefit: Payroll + delivery premiums

Recurring annual control cost: $150 x 12

Annual net run rate: Gross benefit less recurring cost

First-year net benefit: Annual net x 10/12 - $6,500

What is included and excluded

No extra revenue, fixed payroll reduction, penalty avoidance or regular-time capacity value is included. The implementation allowance includes internal setup effort and a provisional external-support budget; it is not a LeanLine quotation.

The delivery-risk illustration is separate from the annual operating model. Standby, recovery payroll and freight can overlap its benefits. Do not add the two figures.

Make each risk actionable.

Eight modeled risks. Assessment horizon: one 12-week project.

0Critical5High3Moderate0Low

Current ratings are scenario assumptions. Select a risk to see its mitigation, owner and response.

01SupplierUnconfirmed equipment misses installation window, causing remobilization and recovery costs.12 · High

The risk: Unconfirmed equipment misses installation window, causing remobilization and recovery costs.

Existing control · assumed: Supplier email and weekly schedule only.

Proposed mitigation: Track supplier milestones weekly; confirm dispatch; approve compliant alternatives before need date.

Owner & timing: Purchasing lead
Day 7 from pilot start.

Warning trigger: No written ship confirmation 10 working days before need date.

Contingency: Resequence approved work; escalate recovery options to PM and customer.

How to verify: Supplier milestone log, receipt and approved fallback plan.

Review & status: Weekly during pilot.
Proposed; unvalidated.

Modeled current: L3 × I4 = 12. Target: L2 × I4 = 8.

02HandoffIncomplete material kits reach crews, creating waiting and emergency trips.15 · High

The risk: Incomplete material kits reach crews, creating waiting and emergency trips.

Existing control · assumed: Foreman discovers shortages on arrival.

Proposed mitigation: Match staged quantities to work package; warehouse and foreman acknowledge critical items.

Owner & timing: Warehouse lead
Day 10 from pilot start.

Warning trigger: Any critical kit item missing at 2 PM readiness review.

Contingency: Split only independently executable work; reassign remaining crew.

How to verify: Signed kit checklist and shortages by work package.

Review & status: Weekly during pilot.
Proposed; unvalidated.

Modeled current: L5 × I3 = 15. Target: L3 × I3 = 9.

03CoordinationPredecessor work or access is unfinished when a crew mobilizes.12 · High

The risk: Predecessor work or access is unfinished when a crew mobilizes.

Existing control · assumed: GC schedule treated as readiness proof.

Proposed mitigation: Confirm workfront access with GC and foreman; attach dated evidence.

Owner & timing: Project manager
Day 7 from pilot start.

Warning trigger: Predecessor acceptance or access confirmation absent day before start.

Contingency: Move crew to preapproved ready work; record delay cause.

How to verify: Workfront confirmation and actual first-work timestamps.

Review & status: Weekly during pilot.
Proposed; unvalidated.

Modeled current: L4 × I3 = 12. Target: L2 × I3 = 6.

04DesignMissing drawing approval stops installation or causes avoidable rework.12 · High

The risk: Missing drawing approval stops installation or causes avoidable rework.

Existing control · assumed: Drawings shared through messages.

Proposed mitigation: Release one approved drawing set with each work package; log unresolved RFIs.

Owner & timing: Project engineer
Day 10 from pilot start.

Warning trigger: Revision mismatch or open RFI affects planned work.

Contingency: Hold affected scope; request direction; continue independent approved scope.

How to verify: Revision check and RFI disposition attached to package.

Review & status: Weekly during pilot.
Proposed; unvalidated.

Modeled current: L3 × I4 = 12. Target: L2 × I4 = 8.

05Data integrityReadiness is marked green without proof and crews still encounter blocked starts.12 · High

The risk: Readiness is marked green without proof and crews still encounter blocked starts.

Existing control · assumed: Status updates rely on memory.

Proposed mitigation: Require evidence fields and audit five starts weekly against site conditions.

Owner & timing: Operations manager
Day 14 from pilot start.

Warning trigger: Two false-green starts in a week.

Contingency: Suspend unreliable release status; verify directly until corrected.

How to verify: Audit results linking board status to actual starts.

Review & status: Weekly during pilot.
Proposed; unvalidated.

Modeled current: L4 × I3 = 12. Target: L2 × I3 = 6.

06Safety Specialist reviewRecovery pressure encourages unsafe access or bypassed site controls.10 · Moderate

The risk: Recovery pressure encourages unsafe access or bypassed site controls.

Existing control · assumed: Routine site safety process assumed.

Proposed mitigation: Keep safety authorization independent of scheduling; preserve stop-work authority.

Owner & timing: Safety lead
Before pilot.

Warning trigger: Unsafe workfront, missing required permit or unsafe recovery proposal.

Contingency: Stop affected work; secure area and obtain authorized safe plan.

How to verify: Safety release and documented safe-work review.

Review & status: Weekly during pilot.
Proposed; unvalidated.

Modeled current: L2 × I5 = 10. Target: L1 × I5 = 5. Impact 5 requires specialist review regardless of total score.

07AdoptionReadiness meetings become added administration and field teams stop updating.8 · Moderate

The risk: Readiness meetings become added administration and field teams stop updating.

Existing control · assumed: No common brief review.

Proposed mitigation: Use a ten-minute exception review and one shared board; retire duplicate entry.

Owner & timing: Dispatcher
Day 14 from pilot start.

Warning trigger: Updates take more than 15 minutes per lead daily for a week.

Contingency: Reduce fields to release-critical data; observe workflow and retrain.

How to verify: Time spent updating and weekly completion rate.

Review & status: Weekly during pilot.
Proposed; unvalidated.

Modeled current: L4 × I2 = 8. Target: L2 × I2 = 4.

08MeasurementA slower workload is mistaken for process savings.9 · Moderate

The risk: A slower workload is mistaken for process savings.

Existing control · assumed: Monthly payroll compared without output context.

Proposed mitigation: Compare equivalent crew-weeks, installed quantities, job phase and causes.

Owner & timing: Operations analyst
Day 28 from pilot start.

Warning trigger: Overtime falls while output or work volume falls materially.

Contingency: Withhold savings claim; extend matched comparison period.

How to verify: Payroll reconciliation and normalized output comparison.

Review & status: Weekly during pilot.
Proposed; unvalidated.

Modeled current: L3 × I3 = 9. Target: L2 × I3 = 6.

View the risk map

Likelihood ↑

Impact increases →

Each number matches a risk in the register. Select an occupied cell to open a risk.

Higher likelihood and impact move a risk toward the top right. The Target view shows conditional ratings after the proposed controls.

Where several risks share a cell, it opens the first listed risk. All remain available in the register above.

What could one risk cost?

One critical-equipment delivery misses the usable work window on a 12-week project.

Scenario	Probability × event loss	Expected loss
Before	30% × $45,000	$13,500
With proposed controls	12% × $45,000	$5,400
Expected-loss reduction	Before less after	$8,100
Separate mitigation cost	Over this risk horizon	$1,800
Net modeled risk benefit	Reduction less mitigation cost	$6,300

The $45,000 event cost assumes $24,000 of incremental standby/remobilization, $9,000 of rental extension and $12,000 of recovery premiums. The probability reduction is an uncalibrated scenario assumption.

The delivery-risk illustration is separate from the annual operating model. Standby, recovery payroll and freight can overlap its benefits. Do not add the two figures.

How the ratings work

Score = likelihood × impact, each rated from 1 to 5. Scores 1–5 are Low, 6–11 Moderate, 12–19 High and 20–25 Critical. These are scenario judgments over the stated assessment horizon.

Likelihood: 1 below 5%; 2 from 5% to below 20%; 3 from 20% to below 40%; 4 from 40% to below 70%; 5 at least 70%. Impact: 1 below $1,000; 2 below $5,000; 3 below $20,000; 4 below $75,000; 5 at least $75,000 or potentially severe safety consequences. Impact-5 safety or technical issues require specialist review regardless of score.

Research sources & assumptions

Why did you call me out (the sub) if the equipment was not ready!!!!! ↗Reddit · r/Construction contributorsIndexed post and comment excerpts. Anonymous self-reports; project conditions and charges not verified.
Are y'all always short on material too or am I just dumb? ↗Reddit · r/Construction contributorsIndexed post and comment excerpts. One account; not a material shortage rate or industry benchmark.
Material Readiness is an Operations Problem Not a Warehouse Problem ↗LinkedIn · Martin CostanzaPublic authored post opened. Practitioner perspective; no independently verified intervention outcome.
Construction Schedules vs Operational Readiness ↗LinkedIn · Nikhil SharmaPublic authored post opened. Author illustration, not an observed client dataset.

Public discussions informed the problem selection. LeanLine Advisory developed the composite scenario, diagnosis and proposed controls. All company profiles, financial inputs and risk ratings are illustrative assumptions. The sources do not establish an industry-wide ranking of these issues.

One bottleneck.
A measurable difference.

Find a problem that feels familiar.