Labour Estimating & Performance Review
2024–2025 Patio Installations | Management Decision Brief
Key Findings
Across 300 patio installations completed during the 2024 and 2025 seasons, the company consistently used more active labour hours than originally estimated. Labour overruns reached 4% in 2024 and 5% in 2025, with 62% of projects exceeding their original estimates in each season.
Our analysis identified two areas requiring management attention:
Differences between crews: After accounting for measured project characteristics and operational complications, Crews A, C, and D used approximately 4.9%, 6.4%, and 10.6% more labour relative to their original estimates than Crew B, respectively. Crew B was selected as the baseline because its actual labour requirements remained close to its original estimates in both seasons.
Operational complications: Difficult soil, delivery issues, and wetter conditions were associated with higher labour use relative to original estimates.
Recommended next step: Review unusually high-overrun projects, investigate crew-level differences, and assess whether current labour estimates adequately account for common operational complications.
These findings identify areas for investigation rather than establishing the causes of the overruns.
Company-Wide Labour Performance
Across both the 2024 and 2025 landscaping seasons, the company consistently used more active labour hours than originally estimated.
During the 2024 season, the company completed 150 patio installations. Actual active labour exceeded estimated labour by approximately 100 crew hours, representing an aggregate overrun of 4%.
This pattern continued in 2025. Across another 150 installations, the company estimated approximately 2,319 active crew hours, but actual labour requirements reached 2,436 hours. This resulted in approximately 117 additional active crew hours, representing a 5% labour overrun.
Notably, 62% of projects (93 out of 150) exceeded their original labour estimates in each season. This indicates that overruns were not confined to a single year.
Company-Wide Labour Performance Summary
| Performance Measure | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|
| Completed projects | 150 | 150 |
| Estimated active crew hours | 2,345 | 2,319 |
| Actual active crew hours | 2,445 | 2,436 |
| Excess active crew hours | +100 | +117.0 |
| Aggregate labour overrun | +4.3% | +5.1% |
| Projects exceeding estimates | 93 (62%) | 93 (62%) |
Note: Labour hours are active crew-elapsed hours, excluding scheduled breaks. Totals are rounded, while overrun percentages are calculated using unrounded values.
Differences Between Crews
The magnitude of labour overruns varied considerably between crews.
Crew A recorded a consistent labour overrun of approximately 4% in both 2024 and 2025.
Crew B remained closest to its estimated labour requirements, recording a small overrun of 0.2% in 2024 and finishing 1.0% below its estimates in 2025.
Crew C exceeded its estimated labour requirements by approximately 5% in 2024 and 6% in 2025. Notably, Crew C exceeded its monthly labour estimates in every month of the 2025 season.
Crew D recorded the largest seasonal labour overruns in both years, increasing from 9.0% in 2024 to 10.2% in 2025.
Because Crew B’s actual labour requirements remained close to its original estimates in both seasons, we used it as the baseline for comparing projects completed during 2024 and 2025.
After accounting for differences in project characteristics and recorded operational complications, all three other crews used more labour relative to their original estimates than Crew B:
- Crew A: Approximately 4.9% more.
- Crew C: Approximately 6.4% more.
- Crew D: Approximately 10.6% more.
All three differences were statistically significant.
Taken together, these findings give management a reason to investigate what distinguishes Crew B from the other crews. In particular, management should ask: Why does Crew B consistently remain closer to its original labour estimates?
One possibility worth investigating is whether differences in foreman experience, crew experience, or work practices help explain these results. An experienced foreman may be better equipped to anticipate complications, coordinate labour, and organize work efficiently. However, our analysis did not measure employee experience, so we cannot determine whether it explains the observed differences.
Comparing estimating assumptions, crew experience, work practices, and recorded disruptions between crews may help identify opportunities to improve labour estimating and project execution across the company.
Operational Factors Associated With Labour Overruns
The analysis also suggests that several operational complications were associated with higher labour requirements, especially:
Difficult soil: Projects encountering difficult soil had labour requirements approximately 4.4% higher relative to their estimates than projects without difficult soil.
Delivery issues: Projects experiencing delivery issues had labour requirements approximately 5.3% higher relative to their estimates than projects without recorded delivery issues.
Wet conditions: A 10-percentage-point increase in a project’s wet-weather fraction was associated with approximately 0.9% higher labour use relative to its estimate.
There is also some evidence that utility conflicts may increase labour requirements, although the statistical evidence was less conclusive and should be interpreted more cautiously.
These findings suggest that certain operational conditions may help explain why actual labour requirements exceed original estimates. However, the analysis identifies statistical associations and does not establish that these conditions directly caused the additional labour.
Projects to Review by Management
Our analysis identified several projects that deserve closer attention. Four projects required substantially more labour than expected, even after accounting for their recorded characteristics and operational complications. A fifth project was selected because it combined a large labour overrun with multiple recorded complications.
We recommend that management begin by reviewing the following five projects:
| Project | Crew | Patio area (sq ft) | Estimated hours | Actual hours | Labour overrun |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P163 (2024) | D | 453 | 14.50 | 20.50 | +41.5% |
| P194 (2024) | A | 440 | 12.30 | 17.10 | +38.3% |
| P076 (2025) | D | 499 | 14.30 | 19.10 | +33.8% |
| P050 (2025) | C | 233 | 9.55 | 12.60 | +31.6% |
| P029 (2025) | B | 271 | 9.32 | 11.20 | +20.1% |
Note: Labour hours represent active crew-elapsed hours, excluding scheduled breaks. The figures are not total person-hours.
What Should Management Investigate?
Projects with recorded complications
P163: This project experienced both a utility conflict and a delivery issue. Management should investigate how these complications affected labour requirements and whether they could have been anticipated during estimating or better managed during construction.
P194: A utility conflict was recorded, but the project still required unusually high labour after accounting for its recorded characteristics. Management should review whether additional difficulties occurred and whether the utility conflict was known before construction.
Projects without recorded major complications
P076: This replacement installation exceeded its estimate by 33.8%, despite no recorded difficult soil, utility conflicts, or delivery issues. Management should review whether removal work, site preparation, or other unrecorded tasks contributed to the overrun.
P050: This relatively small patio had high cutting complexity and substantial exposure to hot conditions. Management should investigate whether these conditions or other unrecorded factors contributed to the additional labour.
P029: This project exceeded its original estimate by 20.1%, with no major complications recorded. Management should review the initial estimate, job records, and actual labour entries to identify possible explanations.
Improve How Operational Complications Are Recorded
One important finding is that three of the four projects with unusually high labour requirements after adjustment had no recorded difficult soil, utility conflicts, or delivery issues.
This does not necessarily mean that these projects experienced no complications. Rather, it raises the possibility that some interruptions, unexpected tasks, or site conditions were not consistently documented.
We recommend introducing a standardized method for recording operational complications on each project. At a minimum, crews should document:
- Type of complication: Difficult soil, unexpected excavation, utility conflicts, delivery delays, equipment problems, rework, or other disruptions.
- Construction stage: Whether the complication occurred during excavation, base preparation, installation, cutting, or finishing.
- Labour impact: The approximate additional crew hours associated with the complication, where this can be reasonably determined.
- When the complication became known: Whether it was identified during the initial estimate or discovered after construction began.
- Additional notes: A brief description of the issue and how it was resolved.
For example:
| Project | Complication | Construction stage | Extra crew hours | Known when quoting? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| P001 | Utility conflict | Excavation | To verify | Unknown |
| P002 | Delivery issue | Installation | To verify | Unknown |
| P003 | Utility conflict | Excavation | To verify | Unknown |
Where possible, estimated and actual labour hours should also be recorded by construction stage, rather than only at the project level.
More consistent documentation would help management distinguish between inaccurate initial estimates, unexpected site conditions, and operational interruptions.
Over time, these records could support more reliable labour estimates, more informed project planning, and earlier identification of recurring problems.
This goes without saying, but the objective is not to assign blame to individual crews, but to understand where additional labour is being used and identify opportunities to improve future estimates.