At SRCN, we find that wrench time and time-in-motion studies usually confirm the same thing. The workforce is rarely the primary constraint. The process is.
If you want the insights these studies provide without the morale impact of introducing a stopwatch, you can usually spot the same underlying issues through signals already present in your work management routines, your CMMS, and your weekly forums. The key areas to focus on are:
1. Readiness confirmation is weak, so the week is built on hope
When work is repeatedly started and then stalls, it is almost always because it was not genuinely ready. This can typically show up as missing isolations, missing permits, missing materials, unclear job scope, or a task plan that has not been validated on the ground.
You do not need a study to see it. Ask one question in the scheduling meeting: How many of next week’s jobs are confirmed as ready to execute today?
If the answer is unclear, or if readiness is assumed rather than proven, this is almost certainly a cause of lost time.
2. The schedule is not protected, so the flow collapses
Low schedule attainment is rarely an execution effort problem. It is a disciplineand stability problem.
When the schedule changes mid-week, it introduces waiting, rework, and recoordination. People remain busy, but output drops because the system is constantly resetting. That is exactly the type of lost time a stopwatch records, but it cannot explain.
You can spot this without a study by tracking a simple weekly signal: How much of the original schedule still exists by mid-week, and why it has changed?
If break-ins are frequent or if priorities are being reshuffled daily, there is waste.
3. Too much work is in progress at the same time
Too many jobs are opened, too many permits are in play, too many constraints are being managed at once, and nothing finishes cleanly.
You can identify this by looking at work in progress: How many jobs are started but not completed? How many jobs are waiting on parts, permits, access, scaffolding, vendor support, or clarification?
If the work in progress is excessive, it is a decision-making issue. Limit the number of jobs in flight, and completion will rise even if utilisation falls on paper.
4. Preparation quality is inconsistent, so jobs change after they start
When the scope keeps changing once the team arrives at the job, it is a preparation failure. The workforce then gets blamed for delays that were baked in before the spanners ever came out.
You can spot this by tracking how often jobs need one of the following after mobilisation:
- Additional materials
- Extra access
- Additional isolations
- Rework to the job pack
- A change in method
If this happens frequently, you do not need to measure wrench time. You need to raise the standard of preparation and enforce a real readiness gate.
5. Decision rights are unclear, so work is constantly reassessed
Wrenchtime studies often reveal time spent in discussions, waiting for approvals, and chasing sign-off. The underlying cause is usually unclear decision rights or weak prioritisation governance.
This can be identified by simply listening in meetings.
- How often does the same work order come back for the same decision?
- How often is priority changed without new risk information?
- How often do people say, we need to check with someone onshore?
If work is being repeatedly reassessed, it is not an effort problem. It is an ownership and governance problem.
The takeaway
A stopwatch will tell you that people spend time waiting, walking, and coordinating. You already know that. The more useful question is why the system repeatedly creates those conditions.
If readiness is weak, schedules are unstable, too much work is in progress, if preparation is inconsistent, and decision rights are unclear, you will get low wrench time even with an excellent workforce.
#SRCN/ARTICLES
