Nov

Oct

May OctJul Dec

Jan Feb

Apr NovJun Sep

MarAug

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec0%

140%

120%

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0

60

50

40

30

20

10

Previous Permanent Workforce:

Previous Productivity with Excessive Permanent Workforce:

— Cycle for Contractors —

% of

Pro

duct

ivity

#of

men

With an Average of 44 workers per month @ an average revenue rate of $15,000 per worker, per month… and with 10 craftsmen working, he

needed to bill out $150,000. If he had 20 working, he needed $300,000 and so on.

If he was only able to bill out $75,000 for those 10 craftsmen a month, his workforce would be just 50% productive.

Taking his sales each month, divided by the number of craftsmen he had woking that month, gives us his sales per worker—if it was

$15,000 or greater, the workforce was 100% or more productive.

Example: If he had 10 workers and monthly sales were $160,000, his productivity would be 107%. If sales were $130,000 for the month, his

productivity would be 87%.Even as the workload fluctuates up & down, construction managers

must make forecasting decisions...often they may result in a contractor being overstaffed. This hold-over occurs as management believes, as

work picks up, quality craftworkers will simply not be available.

The effect is companies paying between 16% and 45% in unnecessary labor costs pulled directly out of profit. Even holding on to one

employee who can’t be kept productively working greatly impacts profit margins.

Construction managers in the “hire / de-hire” mode—staffing up full-time workers as work increases and laying off as it decreases—are driving up unemployment costs for several years out. Also, they’re amplifying their Workers’ Comp exposure and potential increase in

premiums based on the fact that claims of all levels typically inflate as the economy declines or struggles.

Previously, this contractor averaged $10,106 per month per worker. By taking our recommendation to reduce his core workforce to 22 from his annual average 44 — supplementing them with our variable craftsmen as sales required — his average monthly sales per worker went up to $13,474. Essentially, he experienced a 33% increase in revenues per worker per month, and an overall productivity increase of 23.96% by

resizing / restructuring his staffing plan

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec0%

140%

120%

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0

60

50

40

30

20

10

— Cycle for Contractors —

% of

Pro

duct

ivity

#of

menAverage

Fluctuating Workload

Over / Under staffing

Occurs

With an Average of 44 workers per month @ an average revenue rate of $15,000 per worker, per month… and with 10 craftsmen working, he

needed to bill out $150,000. If he had 20 working, he needed $300,000 and so on.

If he was only able to bill out $75,000 for those 10 craftsmen a month, his workforce would be just 50% productive.

Taking his sales each month, divided by the number of craftsmen he had woking that month, gives us his sales per worker—if it was

$15,000 or greater, the workforce was 100% or more productive.

Example: If he had 10 workers and monthly sales were $160,000, his productivity would be 107%. If sales were $130,000 for the month, his

productivity would be 87%.Even as the workload fluctuates up & down, construction managers

must make forecasting decisions...often they may result in a contractor being overstaffed. This hold-over occurs as management believes, as

work picks up, quality craftworkers will simply not be available.

The effect is companies paying between 16% and 45% in unnecessary labor costs pulled directly out of profit. Even holding on to one

employee who can’t be kept productively working greatly impacts profit margins.

Construction managers in the “hire / de-hire” mode—staffing up full-time workers as work increases and laying off as it decreases—are driving up unemployment costs for several years out. Also, they’re amplifying their Workers’ Comp exposure and potential increase in

premiums based on the fact that claims of all levels typically inflate as the economy declines or struggles.

Previously, this contractor averaged $10,106 per month per worker. By taking our recommendation to reduce his core workforce to 22 from his annual average 44 — supplementing them with our variable craftsmen as sales required — his average monthly sales per worker went up to $13,474. Essentially, he experienced a 33% increase in revenues per worker per month, and an overall productivity increase of 23.96% by

resizing / restructuring his staffing plan

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec0%

140%

120%

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0

60

50

40

30

20

10

— Cycle for Contractors —

% of

Pro

duct

ivity

#of

men

With an Average of 44 workers per month @ an average revenue rate of $15,000 per worker, per month… and with 10 craftsmen working, he

needed to bill out $150,000. If he had 20 working, he needed $300,000 and so on.

If he was only able to bill out $75,000 for those 10 craftsmen a month, his workforce would be just 50% productive.

Taking his sales each month, divided by the number of craftsmen he had woking that month, gives us his sales per worker—if it was

$15,000 or greater, the workforce was 100% or more productive.

Example: If he had 10 workers and monthly sales were $160,000, his productivity would be 107%. If sales were $130,000 for the month, his

productivity would be 87%.Even as the workload fluctuates up & down, construction managers

must make forecasting decisions...often they may result in a contractor being overstaffed. This hold-over occurs as management believes, as

work picks up, quality craftworkers will simply not be available.

The effect is companies paying between 16% and 45% in unnecessary labor costs pulled directly out of profit. Even holding on to one

employee who can’t be kept productively working greatly impacts profit margins.

Construction managers in the “hire / de-hire” mode—staffing up full-time workers as work increases and laying off as it decreases—are driving up unemployment costs for several years out. Also, they’re amplifying their Workers’ Comp exposure and potential increase in

premiums based on the fact that claims of all levels typically inflate as the economy declines or struggles.

Previously, this contractor averaged $10,106 per month per worker. By taking our recommendation to reduce his core workforce to 22 from his annual average 44 — supplementing them with our variable craftsmen as sales required — his average monthly sales per worker went up to $13,474. Essentially, he experienced a 33% increase in revenues per worker per month, and an overall productivity increase of 23.96% by

resizing / restructuring his staffing plan

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec0%

140%

120%

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0

60

50

40

30

20

10

— Cycle for Contractors —

% of

Pro

duct

ivity

#of

men

With an Average of 44 workers per month @ an average revenue rate of $15,000 per worker, per month… and with 10 craftsmen working, he

needed to bill out $150,000. If he had 20 working, he needed $300,000 and so on.

If he was only able to bill out $75,000 for those 10 craftsmen a month, his workforce would be just 50% productive.

Taking his sales each month, divided by the number of craftsmen he had woking that month, gives us his sales per worker—if it was

$15,000 or greater, the workforce was 100% or more productive.

Example: If he had 10 workers and monthly sales were $160,000, his productivity would be 107%. If sales were $130,000 for the month, his

productivity would be 87%.Even as the workload fluctuates up & down, construction managers

must make forecasting decisions...often they may result in a contractor being overstaffed. This hold-over occurs as management believes, as

work picks up, quality craftworkers will simply not be available.

The effect is companies paying between 16% and 45% in unnecessary labor costs pulled directly out of profit. Even holding on to one

employee who can’t be kept productively working greatly impacts profit margins.

Construction managers in the “hire / de-hire” mode—staffing up full-time workers as work increases and laying off as it decreases—are driving up unemployment costs for several years out. Also, they’re amplifying their Workers’ Comp exposure and potential increase in

premiums based on the fact that claims of all levels typically inflate as the economy declines or struggles.

Previously, this contractor averaged $10,106 per month per worker. By taking our recommendation to reduce his core workforce to 22 from his annual average 44 — supplementing them with our variable craftsmen as sales required — his average monthly sales per worker went up to $13,474. Essentially, he experienced a 33% increase in revenues per worker per month, and an overall productivity increase of 23.96% by

resizing / restructuring his staffing plan

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec0%

140%

120%

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0

60

50

40

30

20

10

— Cycle for Contractors —

% of

Pro

duct

ivity

#of

men

With an Average of 44 workers per month @ an average revenue rate of $15,000 per worker, per month… and with 10 craftsmen working, he

needed to bill out $150,000. If he had 20 working, he needed $300,000 and so on.

If he was only able to bill out $75,000 for those 10 craftsmen a month, his workforce would be just 50% productive.

Taking his sales each month, divided by the number of craftsmen he had woking that month, gives us his sales per worker—if it was

$15,000 or greater, the workforce was 100% or more productive.

Example: If he had 10 workers and monthly sales were $160,000, his productivity would be 107%. If sales were $130,000 for the month, his

productivity would be 87%.Even as the workload fluctuates up & down, construction managers

must make forecasting decisions...often they may result in a contractor being overstaffed. This hold-over occurs as management believes, as

work picks up, quality craftworkers will simply not be available.

The effect is companies paying between 16% and 45% in unnecessary labor costs pulled directly out of profit. Even holding on to one

employee who can’t be kept productively working greatly impacts profit margins.

Construction managers in the “hire / de-hire” mode—staffing up full-time workers as work increases and laying off as it decreases—are driving up unemployment costs for several years out. Also, they’re amplifying their Workers’ Comp exposure and potential increase in

premiums based on the fact that claims of all levels typically inflate as the economy declines or struggles.

Previously, this contractor averaged $10,106 per month per worker. By taking our recommendation to reduce his core workforce to 22 from his annual average 44 — supplementing them with our variable craftsmen as sales required — his average monthly sales per worker went up to $13,474. Essentially, he experienced a 33% increase in revenues per worker per month, and an overall productivity increase of 23.96% by

resizing / restructuring his staffing plan

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec0%

140%

120%

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0

60

50

40

30

20

10

— Cycle for Contractors —

Right-Sized Workforce

Productivity

Savings

Negative Impact

Negative Impact%

of P

rodu

ctivi

ty#of

men

With an Average of 44 workers per month @ an average revenue rate of $15,000 per worker, per month… and with 10 craftsmen working, he

needed to bill out $150,000. If he had 20 working, he needed $300,000 and so on.

If he was only able to bill out $75,000 for those 10 craftsmen a month, his workforce would be just 50% productive.

Taking his sales each month, divided by the number of craftsmen he had woking that month, gives us his sales per worker—if it was

$15,000 or greater, the workforce was 100% or more productive.

Example: If he had 10 workers and monthly sales were $160,000, his productivity would be 107%. If sales were $130,000 for the month, his

productivity would be 87%.Even as the workload fluctuates up & down, construction managers

must make forecasting decisions...often they may result in a contractor being overstaffed. This hold-over occurs as management believes, as

work picks up, quality craftworkers will simply not be available.

The effect is companies paying between 16% and 45% in unnecessary labor costs pulled directly out of profit. Even holding on to one

employee who can’t be kept productively working greatly impacts profit margins.

Construction managers in the “hire / de-hire” mode—staffing up full-time workers as work increases and laying off as it decreases—are driving up unemployment costs for several years out. Also, they’re amplifying their Workers’ Comp exposure and potential increase in

premiums based on the fact that claims of all levels typically inflate as the economy declines or struggles.

Previously, this contractor averaged $10,106 per month per worker. By taking our recommendation to reduce his core workforce to 22 from his annual average 44 — supplementing them with our variable craftsmen as sales required — his average monthly sales per worker went up to $13,474. Essentially, he experienced a 33% increase in revenues per worker per month, and an overall productivity increase of 23.96% by

resizing / restructuring his staffing plan

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec0%

140%

120%

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0

60

50

40

30

20

10

— Cycle for Contractors —

% of

Pro

duct

ivity

#of

men

With an Average of 44 workers per month @ an average revenue rate of $15,000 per worker, per month… and with 10 craftsmen working, he

needed to bill out $150,000. If he had 20 working, he needed $300,000 and so on.

If he was only able to bill out $75,000 for those 10 craftsmen a month, his workforce would be just 50% productive.

Taking his sales each month, divided by the number of craftsmen he had woking that month, gives us his sales per worker—if it was

$15,000 or greater, the workforce was 100% or more productive.

Example: If he had 10 workers and monthly sales were $160,000, his productivity would be 107%. If sales were $130,000 for the month, his

productivity would be 87%.Even as the workload fluctuates up & down, construction managers

must make forecasting decisions...often they may result in a contractor being overstaffed. This hold-over occurs as management believes, as

work picks up, quality craftworkers will simply not be available.

The effect is companies paying between 16% and 45% in unnecessary labor costs pulled directly out of profit. Even holding on to one

employee who can’t be kept productively working greatly impacts profit margins.

Construction managers in the “hire / de-hire” mode—staffing up full-time workers as work increases and laying off as it decreases—are driving up unemployment costs for several years out. Also, they’re amplifying their Workers’ Comp exposure and potential increase in

premiums based on the fact that claims of all levels typically inflate as the economy declines or struggles.

Previously, this contractor averaged $10,106 per month per worker. By taking our recommendation to reduce his core workforce to 22 from his annual average 44 — supplementing them with our variable craftsmen as sales required — his average monthly sales per worker went up to $13,474. Essentially, he experienced a 33% increase in revenues per worker per month, and an overall productivity increase of 23.96% by

resizing / restructuring his staffing plan

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec0%

140%

120%

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0

60

50

40

30

20

10

Previous Permanent Workforce:

Previous Productivity with Excessive Permanent Workforce:

— Cycle for Contractors —

Right-Sized Workforce

Reduced Permanent Workforce

Supplemental Workforce

Productivity

Savings

Negative Impact

Negative Impact%

of P

rodu

ctivi

ty#of

men

With an Average of 44 workers per month @ an average revenue rate of $15,000 per worker, per month… and with 10 craftsmen working, he

needed to bill out $150,000. If he had 20 working, he needed $300,000 and so on.

If he was only able to bill out $75,000 for those 10 craftsmen a month, his workforce would be just 50% productive.

Taking his sales each month, divided by the number of craftsmen he had woking that month, gives us his sales per worker—if it was

$15,000 or greater, the workforce was 100% or more productive.

Example: If he had 10 workers and monthly sales were $160,000, his productivity would be 107%. If sales were $130,000 for the month, his

productivity would be 87%.Even as the workload fluctuates up & down, construction managers

must make forecasting decisions...often they may result in a contractor being overstaffed. This hold-over occurs as management believes, as

work picks up, quality craftworkers will simply not be available.

The effect is companies paying between 16% and 45% in unnecessary labor costs pulled directly out of profit. Even holding on to one

employee who can’t be kept productively working greatly impacts profit margins.

Construction managers in the “hire / de-hire” mode—staffing up full-time workers as work increases and laying off as it decreases—are driving up unemployment costs for several years out. Also, they’re amplifying their Workers’ Comp exposure and potential increase in

premiums based on the fact that claims of all levels typically inflate as the economy declines or struggles.

Previously, this contractor averaged $10,106 per month per worker. By taking our recommendation to reduce his core workforce to 22 from his annual average 44 — supplementing them with our variable craftsmen as sales required — his average monthly sales per worker went up to $13,474. Essentially, he experienced a 33% increase in revenues per worker per month, and an overall productivity increase of 23.96% by

resizing / restructuring his staffing plan