For Construction & Operations Directors
The same control on every project, so the numbers mean the same thing.
Foras gives each project one reconciled cost position and one forecast method. When every job is measured the same way, movement becomes comparable — and pressure on margin shows up early enough to act on.
Northgate Logistics Park — Phase 2
Forecast · Aug 2026 · Demo data
Approved Budget
£18,420,000
Original Budget + Approved Variations
Adj CTD
£11,964,300
Raw CTD + Adjustments
Forecast CTC
£6,941,100
Qty × Rate × Util%
Forecast Final Cost
£18,905,400
Adj CTD + CTC
Forecast Variance
£485,400 over
2.6% over Approved Budget
Actual Foras interface pattern. Values are illustrative demo data from the Northgate Logistics Park demo project.
What makes oversight hard
Inconsistent method, late signal
Oversight fails less often because of missing reports and more often because each report was produced a different way, too late to change anything.
Every project reports differently
Each team has its own workbook, its own coding habits and its own definition of cost to date. Comparing two projects means interpreting two methods first.
The pack arrives after the moment to act
By the time a movement is reported, the decision that would have changed the outcome is weeks behind you.
Bad news travels slowly
Erosion tends to be absorbed locally until it is too large to absorb, at which point the explanation is retrospective.
You cannot see the working underneath
A forecast is presented as a figure. Whether it reflects reconciled cost and priced remaining work, or an optimistic hold, is not visible from the summary.
How Foras helps
Method first, reporting second
One method across projects
The same measures on each job: approved budget, adjusted cost to date, cost to complete, forecast final cost and variance against approved budget.
Reconciled inputs before reporting
Cost to date is agreed against imported Finance actuals with a recorded decision, so the reported position is not a delivery-team estimate.
Movement you can interrogate
Forecast change traces to a line and to the quantity, rate or utilisation that changed on it — not to a project-level narrative.
Early enough to intervene
Because cost is captured as the work happens rather than after Finance closes, pressure on margin shows up while there is still time to act.
Discipline that does not depend on one person
Baseline changes require a recorded reason and author, and adjustments keep their history, so the control does not leave when the individual does.
Foras is used project by project. Consistency across a portfolio comes from every project being run the same way, not from a claim we are not yet in a position to make.
What changes in practice
What you ask for changes too
- 01
Standardise what is measured
The cost structure and the forecast measures are the same everywhere, even where each project's breakdown differs in detail.
- 02
Ask for the reconciled position
Adjusted cost to date, not a working estimate, becomes the figure teams report from.
- 03
Review movement, not just level
The question shifts from 'what is the number' to 'which line moved and what assumption changed'.
- 04
Act on the early signal
Forecast variance against approved budget is visible during the month, so intervention is not deferred to close.
What you get
Oversight that does not rely on trust alone
Comparable projects
The same measures, defined the same way, so performance can be read across jobs.
Earlier warning
Margin pressure appears while it is still a decision rather than an outcome.
Explainable reporting
Every reported figure has a traceable path back to captured cost, Finance and a recorded decision.
Less heroic effort
Reporting draws on a maintained position rather than a monthly rebuild by the most experienced person available.
Pick your most difficult project. We’ll walk it through the method.
Bring its cost codes and a recent reporting pack. We’ll show what capture, reconciliation and forecasting look like on that job specifically.