The true cost of site meetings: how many hours does your firm actually spend?
When asked how long a site meeting takes, you probably answer "about two hours." That's the time spent on site, sitting around the table with the contractors. But this figure is misleading. It reflects only a fraction of the time actually mobilized by your team. Between preparation, travel, writing the minutes, and following up on remarks, a single site meeting actually consumes between 5 and 6 hours of effective work. On a 12-month project with weekly meetings, the total becomes staggering -- and it's rarely budgeted at its true value.
Anatomy of a site meeting: far more than 2 hours
To understand the true cost of a site meeting, you need to break down each step of the process. Not just the time spent on site, but the entire chain, from preparation to the last follow-up phone call.
Preparation (30 min) -- Review of previous minutes, checking the status of outstanding remarks, preparing the agenda, printing or updating documents. This time is often rushed or done "in the car," but it very much exists.
Travel there (45 min) -- On average, a construction site is 25-35 km from the office. Depending on the location (dense urban, suburban, rural), count between 30 minutes and 1 hour one way. Not including on-site parking, which isn't always straightforward.
On-site meeting (1h30 to 2h) -- The official time. Round table, progress by trade, blocking issues, decisions to make. With 6 to 10 trades present, it's rare to wrap up in less than 1h30.
Travel back (45 min) -- Same as the outbound trip, sometimes extended by a stop at another site or a supplementary visit.
Writing the minutes (1h) -- The minutes are the fundamental document of the DET (Construction Supervision) phase. They formalize decisions, record remarks, assign actions. Properly drafted minutes with photos and references to contract documents require at minimum 45 minutes to 1h15 of structured writing.
Post-meeting follow-up (30 min) -- Sending the minutes, phone follow-ups with contractors who haven't responded to previous remarks, coordination with the project owner, schedule updates. This fragmented time is the hardest to track, yet it's incompressible.
Key figure: A "2-hour" site meeting actually mobilizes 5 to 6 hours of productive time for the project manager or architect responsible for site supervision.
This 1-to-2.5 or 3 ratio between raw meeting time and total mobilized time is a constant found in most firms -- but very few integrate it into their budget estimates.
The painful calculation: the true cost of site meetings over 12 months
Let's set realistic assumptions for a typical project: a public facility or collective housing, supervised for 12 months during the DET phase, with weekly site meetings.
Calculation assumptions:
- Loaded hourly cost of architect or project manager: 45 EUR/h
- Average round-trip distance: 60 km (30 km each way)
- Mileage allowance: 0.60 EUR/km
- Number of meetings per week: 1 (approximately 48 meetings over 12 months)
Detailed cost per site meeting
| Item | Time | Time cost (45 EUR/h) | Mileage cost | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Preparation | 0h30 | 22.50 EUR | -- | 22.50 EUR |
| Travel there | 0h45 | 33.75 EUR | 18.00 EUR | 51.75 EUR |
| On-site meeting | 1h45 | 78.75 EUR | -- | 78.75 EUR |
| Travel back | 0h45 | 33.75 EUR | 18.00 EUR | 51.75 EUR |
| Writing minutes | 1h00 | 45.00 EUR | -- | 45.00 EUR |
| Follow-up / reminders | 0h30 | 22.50 EUR | -- | 22.50 EUR |
| Total per meeting | 5h15 | 236.25 EUR | 36.00 EUR | 272.25 EUR |
Cumulative impact over 12 months
| Frequency | Meetings/year | Total hours | Time cost | Mileage cost | Total cost |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Weekly | 48 | 252 h | 11,340 EUR | 1,728 EUR | 13,068 EUR |
| Biweekly | 24 | 126 h | 5,670 EUR | 864 EUR | 6,534 EUR |
Key takeaway: Switching from weekly to biweekly meetings saves 126 hours and over 6,500 EUR per project over 12 months -- provided the construction phase allows it.
These figures concern only a single project. A firm simultaneously supervising 3 to 5 projects in the DET phase can easily devote 600 to 1,200 hours per year to site meetings and their ecosystem alone. That's the equivalent of one-third to one-half of a full-time position, entirely absorbed by site supervision.
And these estimates don't include exceptional meetings (pre-delivery inspections, deficiency resolution meetings, crisis meetings), nor coordination time with the inspection office or health and safety coordinator.
Why site meetings represent 20 to 30% of total unbudgeted time
The DET (Construction Supervision) phase is chronically underestimated in architecture fees. Several mechanisms explain this gap.
The calculation basis is flawed from the start. When the firm estimates its fees, it often reasons in terms of number of meetings multiplied by 2 hours. This calculation systematically omits travel, minutes, and follow-up -- more than half of the actual time. The budget overrun is then programmed from the moment the contract is signed.
Construction site contingencies are not linear. Weather delays, contractor defaults, mid-course modifications requested by the project owner: each unforeseen event generates additional meetings, supplementary minutes, formal notices. This additional time appears in no forecast schedule.
Multi-trade coordination is a hidden multiplier. The more trades involved, the longer the meeting runs, the denser the minutes become, the more complex the follow-up gets. A 12-trade project doesn't require twice as much time as a 6-trade project -- it often requires three times as much post-meeting follow-up.
The accumulation of outstanding remarks. Over the weeks, the number of open remarks in the minutes grows. Reminders pile up. The preparation time for each new meeting mechanically lengthens, as the status of dozens of outstanding items must be verified.
Key figure: In a firm that doesn't precisely track its time by MOP law phase, the DET phase absorbs on average 25 to 35% of total project time, compared to the initially budgeted 15 to 20%.
This 10 to 15 percentage point differential is directly correlated with meeting time and its ecosystem. It constitutes one of the main factors eroding architecture project profitability, far more than design amendments or plan modifications.
5 methods to better estimate and track site meeting time
Accepting the problem is one thing. Solving it is another. Here are five concrete practices drawn from firms that have structured their site supervision tracking.
1. Systematically include travel time
Travel is part of the meeting. It must be counted, recorded, and billed as such. This requires creating a dedicated category in your time tracking -- "Site travel" -- separate from the meeting itself. You'll get an accurate view of the time actually consumed by each project, and you can adjust your fees accordingly for future contracts.
2. Budget 1 hour per meeting for minutes
It's a simple but effective rule: for each scheduled meeting, automatically block 1 hour of minute-writing time in the week's schedule. This hour is non-negotiable. Poorly written or late minutes create legal issues in case of dispute -- and properly written minutes take time. Include this time from the initial project estimate.
3. Apply a 2.5x multiplier to raw meeting time
When estimating DET time, don't multiply the number of meetings by 2 hours. Multiply by 5 hours (a 2.5x coefficient on raw meeting duration). This coefficient covers preparation, travel, minutes, and follow-up. It's validated by the experience of many firms that have compared their estimates to actual time spent. If you track your management ratios, you can refine this coefficient for your own practice.
4. Track "meeting" and "post-meeting follow-up" separately
Merging meeting time and follow-up time into a single category masks reality. By distinguishing these two items, you quickly identify projects where post-meeting follow-up is spiraling -- a sign of defaulting contractors, coordination problems, or insufficiently directive minutes. This granularity is essential for effectively managing the DET phase.
5. Challenge the frequency: weekly vs. biweekly depending on the phase
Not all construction phases require the same meeting frequency. During structural work, biweekly meetings may suffice if the project is progressing normally. It's during the finishing and fit-out phases that the weekly rhythm becomes essential, as the interfaces between trades multiply. Adapt the frequency to the actual intensity of the construction rather than applying a uniform rhythm for 12 months. Based on the comparison table above, switching to biweekly for the first 4 months of structural work alone can save 8 meetings, or over 40 hours and 2,100 EUR.
Key takeaway: The key isn't to reduce the time spent in site meetings -- it's to measure it precisely so you can integrate it into your fees and schedules. Invisible time is unbilled time.
Conclusion
Site meetings are inseparable from the architect's work during the DET and AOR phases. They're not a problem to eliminate, but a cost to know and control. The real danger isn't spending time on them -- it's not knowing how much. With 250 hours per year per project at a weekly rhythm, site supervision represents a major budget item that too many firms discover after the fact.
Start by measuring: how many hours does your team actually spend on site meetings, including travel and minutes? The answer to this question is the first step toward profitable construction supervision.