Every facilities leader has seen it. A repair that should take 20 minutes somehow becomes a two hour invoice. A technician checks in but never checks out. A callback happens only weeks later, adding more labor, more materials, and more disruption. And although the invoice looks legitimate, something does not add up.
Time on site is one of the most powerful cost multipliers in facility management. Yet it is also the least validated, least monitored, and most inconsistently managed metric in the entire industry.
While hourly rates make up 30 to 40 percent of total cost, time on site directly influences the remaining 60 to 70 percent. It determines how long a job is billed, how many visits occur, whether a provider meets SLAs, and ultimately whether cost per work order rises or falls.
If hourly rate is the sticker price, time on site is the real cost.
This article breaks down why time on site matters, why it is almost never governed correctly, and how leading facilities organizations are finally regaining control.
Why Time on Site Matters More Than Hourly Rate
Time on site determines:
• How many labor hours you pay
• Whether a job requires a second trip
• Whether parts and materials increase
• How often quality issues surface
• Whether the overall repair cycle extends for days or weeks
The average work order for many multi-site operators now takes 14.7 days to complete, while top-performing programs complete comparable work in 8.7 days. That six-day gap is rarely explained by job complexity. It is driven by inefficiencies: long windows to arrive, multiple visits, delayed approvals, unclear scope, or low-quality first attempts.
Each day added to duration compounds cost, especially when refrigeration, HVAC, foodservice equipment, or revenue-critical assets are involved.
The Root of the Problem: Poor Validation and Poor Visibility
Most organizations cannot verify:
• When a technician actually arrived
• When they actually left
• How long they were on site
• Whether the scope required that amount of time
• Whether parts were installed efficiently
• Whether delays were justified or avoidable
This lack of visibility is not intentional. It is structural. Most CMMS platforms are underutilized. Most teams rely on phone calls, manual updates, or inconsistent notes. And many organizations are facing staffing shortages that make real-time oversight impossible.
The result is a blind spot that providers can unintentionally or intentionally take advantage of. Even honest technicians, working through unclear instructions, can inflate time simply because they lack direction, parts information, or asset history.
The Cost Impact: What Time on Site Really Does to a Budget
Every unnecessary minute on site increases:
• Labor charges
• Trip charges if multiple visits occur
• Parts consumption from extended troubleshooting
• Administrative time for rescheduling
• Callback likelihood
In many portfolios, 19 percent of all break fix work orders recur within 30 days. That is not just a quality problem. It is a time-on-site problem.
Short, accurate, high-quality repairs reduce callbacks. Excessively long or inefficient visits increase them.
Below is a visual showing how time on site influences the lifecycle of cost.
Impact of Time on Site
Cost relationship to job duration
| Time on Site Behavior | Cost Outcome |
|---|---|
| Efficient repair within SLA | Lower labor, fewer returns, lower TCO |
| Extended troubleshooting | Higher labor, risk of repeat calls |
| Multiple visits | Additional trip fees and new labor blocks |
| No check in or check out | Unable to validate labor or control spend |
| Incomplete repair leading to callback | Cost doubles or triples over 30 days |
When time on site goes unmanaged, TCO rises whether the hourly rate is high or low.
Why Technicians Spend More Time Than Necessary
Technicians are not the enemy. They are often navigating real field challenges:
• Missing parts
• Incorrect asset information
• No troubleshooting guidance
• Long windows waiting for approvals
• Confusing instructions or vague symptoms
• Broken equipment history
These operational gaps become financial gaps on the invoice.
This is why some teams notice that when they self-perform, jobs are completed faster. It is not because external providers lack skill. It is because self-perform teams have direct access to asset history, parts lists, and technical context. In other words, they have visibility.
The Key to Controlling Time on Site: Real-Time Tracking and Data Governance
To control time on site, organizations must validate it using data, not assumptions.
The most effective programs use:
• Geo fenced check in and check out timestamps
• Automated invoice validation
• AI-driven repair instructions
• Real-time SLA and KPI monitoring
• Historical asset data tied to each dispatch
• Clear, repeatable workflows
These components allow leaders to see not just the time billed, but the time required.
They also allow teams to benchmark providers against one another. The result is a shift from reactive cost management to active performance management.
How Leading Organizations Are Reducing Time on Site Today
High-performing facilities programs are taking three major steps:
1. They assign work to the right provider the first time
Matching skill set to asset type has a direct impact on job duration and first-time fix rates.
2. They use guided instructions or AI tools in the field
When technicians know what to check, which parts to bring, and how the asset behaved historically, repairs happen faster.
3. They validate and benchmark labor with every invoice
Invoice validation is no longer optional. It is part of TCO governance.
Programs using these tactics are seeing lower Days to Complete, higher first-time fix rates, and significant reductions in unnecessary labor.
The Bottom Line
Time on site is where the real cost lives. If leaders focus only on hourly rate, they are missing the strongest lever they have to reduce spend, improve quality, and accelerate repair completion.
Time on site determines:
• Labor cost
• Parts cost
• Callback frequency
• SLA performance
• Asset uptime
• Total operating expense
This is why the next generation of facilities programs is shifting away from rate negotiation and toward performance governance.
The next article in this series will explore the second-largest source of overspend: parts pricing and how inconsistent markups are quietly draining budgets across every vertical.
Let’s talk.
Get in touch and fill out the contact form below!
