1. Why the total conceals the problem
Three mechanisms, and the third is the most deceptive. An overrun on one line hides behind underspending on another. Some works have not been carried out, so the amount spent still seems to fit. And variations have not yet been invoiced, even though the obligation has already arisen.
The total shows what has been paid, not what is owed. An approved but uninvoiced variation is already a cost, and it is the obligation that must be tracked, since that is what will finally be paid.
2. What line level shows
Four things the total does not give, and the fourth is decisive for the forecast. It concerns the estimate of final cost.
| What it shows | Why it counts |
|---|---|
| Which lines are overrun and which are not | localises the problem |
| Whether the overrun is one-off or systematic | determines whether it will recur |
| Which works are done and which lie ahead | ties money to progress |
| Whether the overrun concerns works of which much still lies ahead | determines the forecast |
Where the overrun concerns completed work, the damage is bounded. Where it concerns work of which two thirds still lie ahead, it will keep growing. According to professional sources, tracking costs at line level in the budget makes it possible to see which works are not profitable, which is the same logic from the contractor's side.
3. Two necessary comparisons
They must be made together, since each misleads on its own. Either one alone gives half the picture.
| Comparison | What it shows | Why it misleads alone |
|---|---|---|
| Amount spent vs budget | the financial position | little spent may mean little done |
| Work completed vs planned | the physical position | much done may have been done too expensively |
Only together do they give the picture, and that is the technical core of all tracking. If 60 per cent of the budget is spent and 40 per cent of the work is done, the problem is not coming: it is already here.
4. What tracking does not solve
Three things remain, and the second is a precondition. Tracking does not change decisions already taken. Tracking does not replace a structured budget, without which there is nothing to track. And tracking does not reduce costs by itself but provides information for deciding.
Line-level tracking is impossible where the lines have not been agreed, which makes tracking a pre-contract decision rather than one taken during construction: whoever does not require a structure in the tender cannot track at line level later even if they want to. The structure is settled in the procurement conditions.
5. How often to track
Three rhythms, depending on the size of the project, and the second suits most. It is a monthly review.
With every invoice, which is the minimum and is done in any case. A monthly overview, which suits most projects. And at the end of each stage, which is a natural checkpoint.
Tracking too often produces noise, since over a short interval fluctuation is normal. Tracking too rarely loses the time to react, which is the whole point.
Summary and four practical rules
The total conceals the problem in three ways and shows what has been paid rather than what is owed, so an approved but uninvoiced variation falls outside it. Line level shows whether an overrun is one-off or systematic and whether it concerns works of which much still lies ahead, which is decisive for the forecast. Cost and progress must be compared together, since each misleads on its own.
Four rules: track the obligation, not the amount paid. Compare cost and progress together, not separately. Look at whether much of the overrun work still lies ahead, since that determines the forecast. Decide the tracking structure before the contract, since it cannot be done later.
This article offers professional orientation as at the date of verification. It replaces neither a quotation nor the assessment of a competent specialist.