1. Four questions at the end of a project
They take an hour and save more next time. The review is done at the end of the project.
| Question | Why |
|---|---|
| Which lines exceeded the budget, and by how much | localises |
| Whether the overrun came from quantity, unit price or variations | determines the remedy |
| Which variations were foreseeable and which were not | separates a design error from chance |
| What share of the final sum was not in the original budget | measures the budget's coverage |
The second question matters most, because the three causes require different remedies: a quantity error is put right by better quantity take-off, a price error by better price data, and variations by a better design. The cause determines the remedy.
2. What the actual costs teach
Three things usable immediately, and the third is the least often noticed. It concerns a database of unit prices.
The actual unit price line by line, which is a better input than a general price list. The actual share of variations, which gives a realistic allowance for the next project. And which types of work tend to overrun, which is a pattern belonging to the company or the client.
Where the same type of work overruns in three projects in a row, it is not chance but a systematic weakness either in the price data or in the description. According to professional sources, tracking makes it possible to come back to the data later and see where the budget broke.
3. Why it is rarely done
Three reasons, and the second is technical and solvable. It concerns the accuracy of quantities.
The project ends and the team moves on. The data sit in different places where tracking was not structured. And a post-completion review is nobody's contractual obligation.
Where tracking followed the same structure as the budget, the review is almost automatic. Where it did not, the data have to be gathered together, and then it does not get done.
4. What it gives the next project
Three things, and the second is the most useful for a client. It concerns actual unit prices.
A more realistic budget, based on one's own actual data rather than on general prices. A justified allowance, whose size comes from experience rather than from feel. And knowledge of what to pay attention to.
An allowance whose size cannot be justified is either too small or too large. An allowance based on the actual data of three earlier projects is an argument for a lender and for a board alike.
5. What to keep
Four things should reach the archive together, and the fourth is the most useful. It is an account of how the project ran.
The original structured budget. All approved variations with their justifications. The final actual cost line by line. And a short note on what turned out differently and why.
The fourth is human and therefore valuable, because figures do not say why something happened: three lines of text at the end of a project are worth more than a table with no explanation. The explanation has to be written down at the time.
Summary and four practical rules
Four questions at the end of a project take an hour, and the most important is whether the overrun came from quantity, unit price or variations, since each cause requires a different remedy. The actual costs give the actual unit price, the share of variations and knowledge of which types of work tend to overrun, which after three projects is no longer chance. The review is almost automatic where tracking followed the same structure as the budget.
Four rules: carry out the review immediately after completion, not later. Distinguish the cause of the overrun, since the remedy differs. Track according to the same structure as the budget so that the analysis is possible. Record the explanation as well as the figures.
This article offers professional orientation as at the date of verification. It replaces neither a quotation nor the assessment of a competent specialist.