Problems › We Cannot Tell If the Strategy Is Working › Construction & Trades
A strategy that cannot be wrong cannot be checked, and most written strategies are written so that they cannot be wrong. This page works through it for construction and trade contractors specifically — including an unedited excerpt from a real analysis of a contractor.
A strategy that cannot be wrong cannot be checked, and most written strategies are written so that they cannot be wrong. What makes this harder for construction and trade contractors is structural: service work earns double the margin of projects and loses every staffing argument to liquidated-damages clauses. Any credible answer therefore has to hold job gross margin and backlog cover in the same view, which is exactly where most internal analysis stops because the two live in different systems.
The usual reason a strategy cannot be evaluated is that it was never stated in a form that could fail. "Become the leading provider" produces no observation that would contradict it, so it survives indefinitely regardless of results.
A checkable strategy names the mechanism — this action produces this change in this number by this date — and the observation that would say the mechanism is not working. That second half is what converts a plan into something you can manage against.
The other frequent cause is lag. Strategies operate on horizons longer than reporting cycles, so the honest response is to identify leading indicators that move early and to state in advance what they should read.
These three together are the signature. One on its own usually points somewhere else.
✓ The strategy has no failure condition written anywhere
✓ Progress is reported as completed activity
✓ Reasonable people disagree about whether it is working and cannot resolve it with data
The move that usually makes it worse. Adding more reporting, which increases the volume of numbers without making the strategy falsifiable.
It is for you if you run or finance a contractor and the strategy has no failure condition written anywhere. It is the situation where the numbers are available but nobody has put them in an order that produces a decision.
It is not for you if Percision is the wrong tool if you already know the answer and only need execution capacity, or if the business is pre-revenue — then the constraint is evidence about the market, not analysis of your own figures. Percision is not a lawyer, tax advisor, auditor, licensed appraiser, clinical or regulatory filer, or an AI implementation shop. It does not do HR casework, creative-only brand work, or impersonate a named consulting firm. It is a strategy analysis engine — not a template library. Also wrong if you need facilitation, politics, or someone to sit with a lender or buyer. Those are human jobs.
Percision is not a lawyer, tax advisor, auditor, licensed appraiser, clinical or regulatory filer, or an AI implementation shop. It does not do HR casework, creative-only brand work, or impersonate a named consulting firm. It is a strategy analysis engine — not a template library.
Below is an excerpt from a real run of this analysis on a contractor. It is a sample profile rather than a customer, and it is unedited engine output — this is the format you get, on your own numbers.
The subject is Halloway Mechanical, a sample company profile used for testing rather than a customer — $180M revenue, mechanical contracting.
Excerpt from a real Percision run · Competitive Positioning · sample company profile
The move. Convert sole-source hospital service contracts into shared-savings performance contracts that extend durability from 36-48 months to 48+ months while adding 15-25% performance-fee revenue.
The leak it closes. Plugs $5.4M annual change-order leakage by shifting from construction margin (14.9% gross) to service margin (32% gross) plus performance fees
The assumption it rests on. Hospital systems will convert existing sole-source service contracts to shared-savings structure within 12 months — the engine put the probability at 0.75.
| Investment required | $2.1M Phase 1 (existing cash) + $1.8M Phase 2 (reinvested service margin) + $3.2M Phase 3 (ESOP-compliant revolver draw) = $7.1M total over 36 months |
| Expected return | 5.3× on $7.1M total investment yielding $12.1M incremental Year 3 revenue at 32% gross margin plus 15-25% performance fees |
| Revenue, year 1 | $0.8M performance-fee revenue from 3 pilot contracts |
| Revenue, year 2 | $4.8M performance-fee revenue plus $1.2M incremental service renewals |
| Revenue, year 3 | $12.1M total incremental revenue (performance fees + service renewals + franchise fees) |
| Exit criteria | Exit this move if (a) fewer than 2 of 3 pilot hospitals convert to performance contracts by Month 12, OR (b) net margin on performance contracts falls below 12% for two consecutive quarters, OR (c) unfilled journeyman positions exceed 30 by Month 18 despite $720K recruiting investment |
This is one move out of a full analysis. Read a complete report — every page, no email required.
This question routes to Proprietary EFF Methodology, one of 29 engagements the platform runs. For construction and trade contractors it works through job gross margin, backlog cover, change-order capture and service attach rate, then produces the sequence rather than a list of options — which move first, what it funds, and the observation that would say the sequence is wrong.
You watch the analysis get built before paying anything. Read a complete report here if you would rather see the depth first.
The mechanism it depends on, not the outcome it promises. Outcomes lag; mechanisms move early and tell you sooner whether the causal claim holds.
Decide before starting, and tie it to the mechanism's natural cycle. Deciding afterwards guarantees the timeline is chosen to fit whatever result arrived.
That is usually a sign the strategy was not specific enough to produce a clean test. Narrow it until one number would settle the argument.
Materially, yes. Service work earns double the margin of projects and loses every staffing argument to liquidated-damages clauses — which changes both the diagnosis and the order of the fixes. The metrics that decide it here are job gross margin, backlog cover, change-order capture, and an answer built on industry-general benchmarks will usually point at the wrong one first.
Less than most people expect. Your last twelve months of revenue and cost split the way you already split it, plus whatever you hold on job gross margin and backlog cover. The analysis is explicit about what it is assuming where your data stops, which is more useful than waiting for numbers you may never have.
Percision is the wrong tool if you already know the answer and only need execution capacity, or if the business is pre-revenue — then the constraint is evidence about the market, not analysis of your own figures. Percision is not a lawyer, tax advisor, auditor, licensed appraiser, clinical or regulatory filer, or an AI implementation shop. It does not do HR casework, creative-only brand work, or impersonate a named consulting firm. It is a strategy analysis engine — not a template library. Also wrong if you need facilitation, politics, or someone to sit with a lender or buyer. Those are human jobs.
Percision is not a lawyer, tax advisor, auditor, licensed appraiser, clinical or regulatory filer, or an AI implementation shop. It does not do HR casework, creative-only brand work, or impersonate a named consulting firm. It is a strategy analysis engine — not a template library.
Describe the situation in your own words and we will tell you which analysis answers it — before you sign up for anything.
Describe my situation →Prefer to skip ahead? Go straight to the free diagnostic.