The easiest percentage to move
Every other progress figure on a project can be checked against something physical. Concrete either exists or it doesn't. Cable is either pulled or it isn't. Somebody can walk over and look.
Engineering has no wall. A document is forty percent complete because an engineer says so, and there is no independent record that contradicts it
.
That makes it the softest number on the project, and it is also the earliest, which means it is the number the first several months of reporting rest on.
How weighting works
The standard approach is to weight each deliverable by expected effort and assign fixed percentages to defined stages: started, internally checked, issued for review, issued for construction.
The reason it works isn't that the stages are accurate. It is that they remove the judgement. A drawing at the review stage scores the same regardless of who is reporting it, which makes the aggregate comparable even when each individual estimate is rough.
This is the same reasoning as rules of credit for construction, which Cost & Cash Week 11 covers. Fixed steps beat continuous judgement, not because the steps are right but because they are the same for everybody.
Where it breaks
Two failures, and both are visible if you look for them.
The first is weighting by count rather than by effort. A hundred small documents and ten large ones give a percentage that moves quickly at the start, when the easy items are being cleared, and then stalls. The curve looks healthy for four months and flat for six.
The second is revisions. A drawing issued for construction is at a hundred percent. It comes back with comments, or the design changes, and it has to be reworked. If the register has no way to move a deliverable backwards, the same problem from Week 11 appears here: effort is being consumed against something that already shows complete.
What can corroborate it
Since there is no physical check, the corroboration has to be procedural, and two records are usually available.
Transmittals show what was actually issued
, and issuing is an event with a date rather than an opinion. A register claiming a large number of deliverables at issue stage should be matched by transmittals; if it isn't, the stage is being assigned before the document leaves.
Hours booked to engineering give the other side. Effort expended against progress claimed is the engineering equivalent of the paint check in Week 8 — not conclusive, but a large divergence in either direction is worth a question.
Changing the order rather than the length
If the register is new, weight by expected hours, define four or five stages, and decide in advance what happens to a deliverable that is reissued.
Inherited: the weighting is probably by count, and changing it will restate the whole series, which nobody will thank you for mid-project. The workable move is to report the released count alongside the percentage. Two numbers, one of which can't be softened, and the second gradually becomes the one people quote.
System design
Weighted stages, and two records that can contradict them. Neither corroboration is conclusive; both are free.
| Record | Produced by | Required quality | Verified against | Feeds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Deliverable weighting | Engineering | By expected hours, not by document count | Historic effort | Engineering progress |
| Stage reached | Discipline lead | Defined stages applied the same way by everybody | Transmittal record | Progress, earned value |
| Hours booked to engineering | Timesheets | Split by discipline | Progress claimed | Productivity, forecast |
| Released count | Document control | A count, which can't be softened | Transmittals | The figure people end up quoting |
The last row is the antidote to the first three. Report it alongside the percentage and it gradually becomes the figure people quote.
Practical insight
Take the engineering register and count two things for last month: how many deliverables moved a stage, and how many transmittals went out.
If the first is much larger than the second, progress is being recorded at stages that don't involve anything leaving the department. That isn't dishonesty. It is what happens when the stages are defined internally and never checked against an external event.
Key takeaways
- Engineering progress has no physical record to check it against. It is the softest and earliest number on the project.
- Weighted stages work because they remove judgement, not because the weights are accurate.
- Weighting by document count instead of effort produces a curve that races then stalls.
- A reissued drawing consumes effort against something already showing complete, unless the register can move backwards.
- Transmittals corroborate the issue stages. Stages assigned before anything leaves are visible this way.
- Hours booked against progress claimed is the engineering version of the same corroboration.
- On an inherited register, report released count alongside percentage rather than restating the series.
Records born here. Weighted deliverable register · transmittal log · released count series.
What is coming next
Drawings release work. So do purchase orders, and the second chain is longer and less visible than the first.
Next week: procurement — order status, expediting, and the promise that keeps moving a week at a time.
Enjoyed this lesson?
Join with Google to get each new lesson the moment it's published — and help me see which topics matter most to you. No spam, one email a week, unsubscribe anytime.
Already following on LinkedIn works too — this is just for the weekly email.