What's your approach to handling jobs that take twice as long as estimated?

We're seeing a pattern in our electrical division where complex commercial jobs are running 75–100% over initial time estimates. The immediate impact is cascading delays through the afternoon schedule, frustrated customers, and technician overtime that wasn't budgeted.

From an operational standpoint, I'm less concerned with the occasional overrun and more interested in how teams structurally account for this reality. A few specific questions:

  • Do you build buffer time into every estimate, or only certain job types?
  • How do you communicate delays to downstream customers without damaging trust?
  • What visibility do your dispatchers have into job progress before the technician marks complete?

We're currently evaluating whether to move toward "optimistic" scheduling with explicit buffers, or "realistic" scheduling that bakes contingency into every job. I'd welcome perspective from teams that have made this choice deliberately.

Parents
  • Tried the "mobility time" framing. Techs saw through it in a week. They're not stupid.

    What actually worked: Paying them for the full scheduled window whether the job takes it or not, plus bonus for finishing early without callback. Aligns incentives. Dispatch gets more predictable, customers get techs who aren't rushing to beat an unrealistic clock.

    Costs more. Worth it.

Reply
  • Tried the "mobility time" framing. Techs saw through it in a week. They're not stupid.

    What actually worked: Paying them for the full scheduled window whether the job takes it or not, plus bonus for finishing early without callback. Aligns incentives. Dispatch gets more predictable, customers get techs who aren't rushing to beat an unrealistic clock.

    Costs more. Worth it.

Children
No Data