Profit Fade Self-Assessment Worksheet | ProNovos
Profit Fade Self-Assessment
Diagnostic Worksheet

Is Margin Erosion a Project or Process Problem?

Rate each statement 1–5 across five categories. Scores calculate live as you go.

1Strongly Disagree 2Disagree 3Inconsistent 4Agree 5Strongly Agree
Section 01
Forecasting Discipline
— /25
1.Cost-to-complete forecasts are updated consistently across all active jobs, not just before WIP meetings.
2.Project managers document assumptions when adjusting forecasts.
3.We compare the original estimate, the prior forecast, and the current forecast every month.
4.Forecast revisions are discussed proactively rather than defensively.
5.We track each project manager's forecast accuracy over time.
If most answers are 3 or below, profit fade risk is driven by inconsistent forecasting discipline.
Section Total 0 /25
Section 02
Labor and Production Visibility
— /25
1.Labor productivity is tracked weekly against estimated hours at the cost code level.
2.Earned versus actual hours are visible to both operations and finance.
3.Labor overruns are identified within weeks, not months.
4.Field leadership is accountable for productivity performance.
5.Productivity data is used to adjust forecasts in real time.
If you cannot clearly measure productivity variance weekly, margin erosion is likely showing up too late.
Section Total 0 /25
Section 03
Change Order Controls
— /25
1.No costs related to pending change orders are incurred until change orders are approved.
2.We have real-time visibility into pending change order exposure.
3.Project teams understand the margin impact of delayed approvals.
4.Change order aging is reviewed at the executive level.
5.We rarely see margin compression caused by timing gaps between approval and cost incurrence.
Low scores here suggest artificial profit fade driven by timing and reporting gaps.
Section Total 0 /25
Section 04
Portfolio-Level Risk Detection
— /25
1.We monitor margin stability trends across the entire project portfolio.
2.We flag jobs with repeated downward forecast revisions for executive review.
3.Executive meetings focus on leading indicators, not just WIP results.
4.We can identify systemic issues across multiple jobs quickly.
5.Margin surprises at closeout are rare.
Low scores here indicate your portfolio-level visibility is reactive rather than predictive.
Section Total 0 /25
Section 05
Estimating Accuracy
— /25
1.We regularly compare original estimates to final job costs at project closeout.
2.Historical bid-to-actual data is used to inform future estimates.
3.Our estimating process includes a structured review for high-risk or complex scopes.
4.We can identify which estimators or project types carry the most estimate variance.
5.Estimating gaps are treated as a systemic process issue, not just individual error.
If estimates are frequently wrong at the outset, no amount of forecasting discipline will prevent margin fade.
Section Total 0 /25
Answer all 25 questions to unlock your results
Your Overall Score
0/125

Section
Max
Your Score
Section 1: Forecasting Discipline
25
—
Section 2: Labor and Production Visibility
25
—
Section 3: Change Order Controls
25
—
Section 4: Portfolio-Level Risk Detection
25
—
Section 5: Estimating Accuracy
25
—
Overall Total
125
—
Leadership Discussion Prompts
  • Q
    Where do we see the most forecast revisions — labor, change orders, or estimating variance?
  • Q
    Are margin issues isolated to certain project managers or consistent across the portfolio?
  • Q
    Is our WIP report predictive, or primarily historical?
  • Q
    Which section revealed the most significant gap, and what is one action we can take in the next 30 days?

Want a copy of your results sent to your inbox? Enter your email below.

Ready to stop profit fade at the source?

Schedule a Demo
© 2025 ProNovos. All rights reserved.