The costing stays with the job
It is not a preparation document but the measure the job is held against later. It sits with the job, not in a folder.
Practice / Costing and cost review
Costing and cost review
Reviewing a job afterwards gets expensive when plan, hours, materials and subcontracted work sit in several applications with different words and different dates.
The starting point
The work
in between.
- The costing is built in a spreadsheet and never opened again once the order is placed.
- Hours sit in the time records, materials in the delivery notes, subcontracted work in the books.
- Exports, APIs or a layer in between can join these sources. The figure only becomes dependable when assignments, dates and failure cases are checked continuously.
- Without a fixed review run, rules of thumb go unchecked and changes become visible late.
A suitable design
What needs to
work together.
These components describe one possible individual scope. Scope and rules are agreed with your business.
Actuals from agreed sources
Hours, materials and subcontracted work are drawn from approved, monitored sources. Failed imports and unclear references stay visible.
A pattern, not a single case
One job below plan is chance. Three similar jobs below plan say something about the costing. The system names the difference.
An example decision card
A finished job came in well below the costing
The contribution is about a third of the figure that was planned. Two similar jobs show the same pattern.
No blame and no recommendation. Only the note that a pattern is forming.
What went into that figure?
- hours recorded by everyone involved
- + materials from the delivery notes for this job
- + subcontracted work from the incoming invoices
- − nothing estimated, nothing spread that was not assigned
07 · To count back
Did the job actually pay?
Revenue, hours, materials and subcontracted work already sit on the finished job. Bring the actuals together and compare them with the costing.
A calculation you can check
Calculate the real contribution from evidenced costs
Overheads that are not assigned are not quietly estimated.
- + Work invoicedfinal invoice R-2026-176 · net €28,600 on file
- − Hours recorded168 hours · stored cost rates €9,240 spread out
- − Materials14 delivery notes · two returns deducted €11,870 spread out
- − Subcontracted worktest report and platform lift · two invoices €2,150 spread out
Planned contribution
€7,900That is 27.6 % of the order value.
History
The starting position and the check that ran stay distinguishable.
- Agent · analysis Completion noticed; four sources for the cost review are complete.
An illustration. The job, the hours and the amounts are invented. The calculation contains no estimated costs.
The figure can be taken apart
Every kind of cost points back to its hours, delivery notes or invoices. A gap is then a trail you can follow, not a gut feeling.
Patterns need several jobs
One job on its own is not a rule. Only repeated gaps on comparable work change the next costing.
The countercheck
Where things
can go wrong.
Reviewing costs easily turns into apportioning blame. Once figures are used to hold something against someone, timesheets stop being honest, and then the analysis is worthless. What the figures are for has to be settled beforehand, not afterwards.
A useful first trial includes this failure case explicitly. Fast processing alone is not success if checking and correction create more work.
The connection to the next task
Your first stage
Start where
the work improves.
For Costing and cost review, we choose a bounded first outcome with your team. Existing specialist systems can stay where they fulfil necessary requirements. We compare time relief, payments that can end and the cost of the new way of working.
The workshop gives you priorities and a roadmap. You can continue internally or with support from Markus Kirchmair. The choice of model and agent follows the task, with data and rules retained outside an individual chat.
Explore the workshop →Ready for the next change
Keep the work simple.
The first view should show the next relevant decision. Reasoning and sources remain accessible. We leave out unnecessary features and make actual progress visible.
When a rule changes, agents can help investigate the impact, prepare the adjustment and update tests and documentation. A qualified person assesses the result and its adoption.
Try a change →Your first step
Say yes
to less.
Less unnecessary software. More room for your work. Let’s find the useful first step.