The best roofing companies do not just complete projects — They learn from them

By John Kenney, Cotney Consulting Group. 

Every roofing project teaches the contractor something. The question is whether the business captures that lesson or allows it to disappear when the job is finished. 

Some lessons are obvious. A material may perform differently than expected, access may prove more difficult than the tender allowed for, labour productivity may be lower in one roof area or a supplier lead time may affect the programme. Other lessons are less visible. The handover may have been incomplete, the client’s expectations may not have been fully understood, a variation may have been recognised too late or the site team may have found a better installation sequence that was never communicated back to estimating. 

In many roofing businesses, that knowledge remains with the people who worked on the project. The estimator remembers part of it, the project manager remembers another part and the site manager carries the rest. The project ends, everyone moves on and the company loses an opportunity to improve. 

The best roofing contractors do not treat completion as the end of the process. They treat it as the point where project experience should be converted into organisational knowledge. 

Experience only has value when it is shared

Roofing is an experience-driven industry. People learn by seeing what works, understanding what fails and recognising the conditions that create risk. That experience becomes extremely valuable over time, but only if the business has a way to share it. 

A company may have an estimator with 25 years of knowledge, a contracts manager who has completed hundreds of projects and a site supervisor who can identify installation problems before most people see them. Those individuals are valuable, but the business remains vulnerable if their knowledge is not transferred to others. 

The company should not have to relearn the same lesson every time a different person manages the project. 

If one site team discovers that a particular detail consistently requires more labour than the estimate allows, that information should reach the estimating team. If a project manager finds that a supplier’s actual lead time is longer than expected, that should be reflected in future procurement planning. If a client’s access restrictions create repeated disruption, the tender review process should address those conditions on the next project. 

Experience becomes a company asset only when it changes future behaviour. 

The estimate and the actual result must be compared 

One of the most important lessons on any project comes from comparing the tender with the final result. The estimate represents what the company believed would happen. The completed project shows what actually happened, and the difference between the two deserves attention. 

Did the project use more labour hours than allowed? Were material quantities accurate? Did waste exceed the tender assumption? Was plant required for longer than expected? Did the installation sequence work? Were there additional deliveries or handling costs? Did supervision continue beyond the planned period? Were variations identified and valued properly? 

These questions are not intended to prove that the estimator was wrong or that the project manager failed. They are intended to improve the next estimate and the next delivery plan. 

An estimate built entirely from historical rates can become unreliable if those rates are never tested against current project performance. Labour output changes, material packaging changes, access conditions vary and installation methods improve. The company needs actual information from completed work to keep its estimating assumptions realistic. 

Without that feedback, estimating and operations begin working from different versions of reality. 

Labour performance should be understood, not simply judged 

Labour overruns are often discussed too generally. The final report may show that the project exceeded the labour allowance, but that figure alone does not explain what happened. The business needs to understand where the hours were used and why. 

Was the original allowance too low? Did access reduce productivity? Was the site team waiting for another trade? Were materials handled more often than planned? Did the client change the sequence? Was additional preparation required? Did weather affect progress? Was the team unfamiliar with the roofing system? Did remedial work increase the total hours? 

A labour overrun caused by poor access requires a different correction from one caused by an inaccurate production rate. If the business concludes that the team was too slow, it may miss the real lesson.

The purpose of reviewing labour is not to blame the operatives. It is to understand the conditions that affected performance and determine whether the tender, programme, supervision or site plan should change in the future. That produces better decisions. 

Site knowledge must return to the office

The people working closest to the roof often see problems and opportunities first. They understand which details take longer than expected, which delivery methods create unnecessary handling, which areas are difficult to access and which installation sequences produce better results. That knowledge is valuable to estimating, procurement and project management.

Unfortunately, many businesses have a one-way flow of information. The office sends drawings, programmes and instructions to site, but very little structured information comes back. Daily reports may record labour and progress, but the broader operational lesson is rarely captured. 

A proper project review should include input from the site manager or supervisor. They should have the opportunity to explain what supported productivity, what disrupted the work and what the business should approach differently next time. This is especially important when the project went well. 

Companies often review failures in detail but spend very little time understanding success. If one team completed an area faster than expected while maintaining quality, the business should know why. Perhaps material distribution was better, the workface was released more effectively or the team developed an improved sequence. 

Good performance should be studied and repeated. 

Quality issues should improve the system

Every roofing contractor aims to complete work correctly the first time, but defects, snagging items and remedial work still occur. The value of a quality review is not simply confirming that the problem was corrected. The business should understand why it happened. 

Was the detail unclear? Was the wrong material delivered? Did the site team lack the correct information? Was supervision inadequate? Did programme pressure encourage rushed work? Was the inspection completed too late? Did the tender fail to allow enough time for the required level of detail? 

Correcting the visible defect solves the immediate problem. Correcting the process reduces the chance of recurrence. That is the difference between repair and improvement. 

If the company repeatedly encounters the same type of defect but never changes its training, supervision, inspection or documentation, it is not learning from the work. The strongest contractors use quality issues to strengthen the operating system. 

Commercial lessons must be captured as well

A project can perform reasonably well on site and still produce a poor financial result. Variations may be identified late; instructions may not be recorded; payment applications may not reflect actual progress; delay costs may not be tracked; the final account may remain unresolved for too long; or retention may be overlooked. 

These are commercial lessons, but they are also operational, as they often begin with communication and record-keeping. 

A variation that is not reported from site cannot be valued promptly. An undocumented delay becomes difficult to explain later. Additional labour that is not linked to a specific change becomes part of the general project cost. The post-project review should therefore consider more than productivity and quality. It should examine whether the business protected its commercial position throughout the work. 

Were instructions confirmed in writing? Were notices issued when required? Were variations submitted promptly? Did the project team maintain adequate records? Did the contractor recover the value of the work it completed? A profitable project depends on good installation and good commercial control. Both should be reviewed. 

Client feedback provides another perspective

Internal project reviews are important, but the contractor should also consider the client’s experience. The project may have met the roofing specification while still causing frustration due to poor communication, missed updates or inconsistent site management. 

The client may also have valued something the contractor did not recognise. They may have appreciated early warning of programme changes, clear explanations of technical issues or the way the site team managed access around an occupied building. That feedback can help the contractor understand what creates trust. 

Not every client comment requires a change in process, but patterns matter. If several clients raise the same concern, the business should listen. If several clients praise the same behaviour, that strength should become part of the company’s operating standard. 

The goal is not simply to complete technically acceptable work. It is to deliver a professional experience that encourages repeat business and stronger relationships. 

Lessons-learned meetings should be practical

A project review does not need to become a long formal exercise. In many cases, a focused meeting with the right people can produce the necessary information. The estimator, project manager, commercial lead and site representative should review what was planned, what actually occurred and what should change. The conversation should remain specific. 

Saying that communication could have been better is not enough. Which information was missing? Who needed it? When should it have been provided? What step should be added or changed? Saying that procurement was difficult is not enough. Which item created the problem? Why was it ordered late? Was approval delayed? Was the lead time misunderstood? Who should track it differently next time? 

General comments create little improvement. Specific lessons can be turned into action. 

Every lesson should have an owner

One of the biggest weaknesses in lessons-learned meetings is that the discussion ends without responsibility. People agree that the handover form should be updated, labour rates should be reviewed or supplier lead times should be adjusted, but no one has been assigned to make the changes. 

The lesson is then lost. 

Every agreed improvement should have an owner and a deadline. If the estimating database needs to be updated, someone should be responsible for it. If the pre-start checklist requires a new access question, someone should revise it. If the site team needs additional training on a detail, that training should be scheduled. If the supplier information is inaccurate, procurement should correct it. 

The purpose of the review is not simply to discuss the past. It is to improve the future. That only happens when the lesson becomes action. 

The review process should remain constructive

People will only share useful information when they believe the review is fair. If every project meeting becomes an effort to identify who made the mistake, employees will protect themselves. They will provide less detail, avoid difficult subjects and shift responsibility. That destroys the value of the process. 

Accountability still matters. If someone ignored a required step or failed to communicate important information, leadership must address it. However, the broader review should also focus on how the system supported or failed the people performing the work. 

Was the expectation clear? Was the correct information available? Was the responsibility assigned? Was there enough time? Did the process identify the risk? Was the issue escalated soon enough? 

Strong leaders examine both individual performance and system performance. That creates a more honest and useful discussion. 

Small improvements build long-term advantage

The greatest value of lessons learned does not come from one major discovery. It comes from repeated small improvements. A labour rate is adjusted, a handover question is added, a supplier lead time is corrected, a site reporting requirement is clarified, a recurring detail is included in training, a variation procedure is strengthened or a quality inspection happens earlier. 

Each change may appear minor, but over time those changes make the business more accurate, efficient and predictable. That is how operational excellence develops. It is not created through a single software platform, a single management meeting or a single written procedure. It is created by learning from real work and improving how the next project is estimated, planned and delivered. 

Completion should create a better starting point

Every roofing contractor works hard to complete projects, satisfy clients and protect margin. The strongest companies take one additional step. They make sure the completed project leaves the business better prepared for the next one. 

They compare the estimate with actual cost, review labour performance, listen to the site team, study quality issues, examine commercial results and capture client feedback. They turn those lessons into changes that improve future tenders and future projects. 

A contractor that completes work without learning from it gains revenue and experience. A contractor that captures the lesson gains something more valuable. It gains a stronger operating system. 

The best roofing companies do not simply finish projects and move on. They use every project to improve the next one. 

About the author 

John Kenney has more than 45 years of experience in the roofing industry. His career has included every level of roofing operations, from field installation and estimating through executive leadership. He is the CEO of Cotney Consulting Group, a partner member of the International Federation for the Roofing Trades. He has earned the MIoR designation from the former Institute of Roofing in the United Kingdom. He works with roofing contractors to improve estimating, project management, operational performance, leadership and profitability.