A timesheet records the man-hours a crew spent; progress is the physical work completed, measured against the contract scope. They are different quantities, kept in different records, and neither can be derived from the other. A blocked crew burns hours while progress stands still; a well-run crew can finish ahead of the hours. The project only becomes readable when both numbers exist independently — because their ratio, labour efficiency, is the earliest honest signal of where the job is heading.
The trap: percent complete from hours burned
It is the most natural shortcut on a busy job: the item was budgeted at 1,000 hours, the crew has booked 700, so the report says 70% complete. No one measured anything — the number is the budget assumption, restated as if it were an observation. The failure mode is always the same and always late:
- Reported progress tracks spend smoothly upward, so every week looks normal — including the weeks that produced nothing.
- The gap between reported and real accumulates silently until it cannot: the hours run out at “95% complete” and the remaining work is somehow half the job.
- The client’s quantity surveyor measures physically, so claims built on hours-based progress get cut — and the cut arrives as a surprise instead of a known position.
Progress has to be measured as output: quantities installed per scope item, in the item’s own units, recorded by people who see the work. That is a five-minute weekly discipline, not a bureaucracy.
What the timesheet is actually for
None of this makes timesheets optional. The timesheet answers three questions nothing else answers:
- What did the work cost in hours? Actual man-hours per day, per person — the input side of every efficiency and every internal cost check.
- Who was on site, and who wasn’t? Absences recorded as explicit codes — sick, vacation, rotation — not as ambiguous empty cells. Available capacity is the other half of every manpower plan.
- What does payroll rely on? A month that closes into a frozen, payroll-grade record — not a living file that quietly changes after the fact.
The practical objection to timesheets is the daily typing, and it is legitimate. The answer is exception-based recording: the standard shift fills itself on working days, and the manager records only what differs — absences, overtime, partial days. Daily accuracy without daily ceremony.
The bridge: efficiency needs both records
Kept independently, the two records combine into the number that actually manages the job. Completed work earns the hours it was budgeted at; the timesheet says what was spent. Earned divided by actual is labour efficiency — and because the inputs are independent, the ratio can genuinely surprise you, which is precisely its value. Efficiency computed from a progress figure that was itself derived from hours is a mirror looking at a mirror.
This is also why the two records should live in one structure rather than two spreadsheets: the comparison has to happen every week, per section, without a copy-paste step that fails the one week everyone is busy.
Frequently asked questions
Can you calculate progress from timesheet hours?
No. Hours consumed divided by hours budgeted gives spend, not progress — the calculation silently assumes the work is going exactly as estimated, which is the very thing being checked. Progress must be measured as physical output against the contract scope: quantities installed, in the item's own units.
Why keep timesheets at all if they don't measure progress?
Because they measure the other half of the picture: what the work cost in man-hours. Compared against the hours the completed work earned, the timesheet is what turns measured progress into labour efficiency — the earliest honest signal that a job is winning or losing. It is also the payroll-grade record of who was on site.
Should site timesheets be filled daily or weekly?
Recorded daily, reviewed weekly. Daily recording keeps exceptions accurate — absences, overtime, partial days are forgotten within days. But daily recording does not have to mean daily typing: with a standard shift that fills itself on working days, the manager only touches the exceptions.
Do absences belong in the project record?
Yes, as explicit codes — sick, vacation, rotation — rather than empty cells. An empty cell is ambiguous: not entered yet, or not on site? Coded absences make the difference between planned capacity and available capacity visible, which is half of every manpower conversation.