Changing site engineer mid-project: how not to lose the information
A site handover is the transfer of responsibility and of knowledge from an outgoing site engineer to an incoming one. It is one of the riskiest operations in the life of a project and one of the worst executed: in most cases it amounts to two days of walking the site, a folder of files and a list of open items written in a hurry.
What a handover loses is not the documentation. The drawings, the contracts and the minutes stay where they were: nobody takes them along on the way out.
What it loses is the context.
What lives only in the site engineer’s head
Try listing what a site engineer knows about their job that is written down nowhere:
- Which work faces are actually released and which only on paper
- Which subcontractor delivers and which one has to be chased
- What was agreed verbally with the supervision team, and on what terms
- Where there were quality problems that got resolved leaving no trace
- Which material takes time to arrive and how far ahead it has to be ordered
- Which quantities are still unbilled, and why
- Which inspection observations are genuinely still open
- Where the buried services are that do not match the drawing
None of that is in the folder. All of it leaves with the person.
The cost, in time
An incoming engineer on a project of average complexity takes three to six weeks to operate as fluently as the outgoing one. During that period they:
- Make decisions on incomplete information
- Repeat mistakes that had already been solved
- Lose time looking for information that exists but cannot be found
- Miss deviations, because they have no baseline of their own
And there is a less visible cost: the things the outgoing engineer was about to claim and never claimed. Unbilled quantities, days lost to someone else’s cause, additional costs. If they lived in their head and their notebook, they leave the project with them.
Why the traditional handover fails
It happens late. When someone resigns or gets transferred, there are only a few days left. And in those days the outgoing engineer is already disconnecting.
It is an oral transfer. Two days of walking and talking, covering a twelve-month project. The compression is brutal.
The existing documentation does not help. Files in folders, unsorted photos, scattered emails, and the outgoing engineer’s notebook, which leaves with them.
Nobody measures what got transferred. There is no way to know whether the incoming engineer received what they needed until the first problem shows up.
What does work
The daily record is the handover. This is the central idea. If the project has a structured daily record —what was built, where, with whom, what stopped and why— the incoming engineer can reconstruct the history by reading, without depending on the outgoing engineer’s memory.
That is not the same as a folder of documents. It is a searchable timeline.
A handover document with a fixed structure. Not an improvised list of open items. At a minimum:
| Section | Content |
|---|---|
| Status by work face | What is built, what is in progress, what has not started |
| Unbilled quantities | With their supporting evidence, if any exists |
| Open observations | From inspection, quality, safety |
| Live or potential claims | With the state of the supporting record |
| Subcontractors | Status of each, contact, known problems |
| Critical materials | Real lead times, not the theoretical ones |
| Undocumented agreements | Everything agreed verbally |
| Identified risks | What the outgoing engineer sees coming |
The second-to-last section is the most valuable and the one that never gets written. It is worth asking for explicitly.
A real overlap. A week with both on site, not two days. And with the work split between them, not with one shadowing the other.
Handover in front of the supervision team. The incoming engineer should be formally introduced and it should be recorded in the site book. It changes the relationship from day one.
The case of the abrupt exit
Sometimes there is no handover at all. The person leaves overnight, or there is a dispute.
That is when it becomes clear how much the project depended on one head. And the only things left are the things that were written down.
It is the most practical argument for keeping a structured daily record, beyond any legal or control consideration: it reduces the dependency on people. It does not eliminate the cost of a departure, but it turns it into weeks instead of months.
Frequently asked questions
- How long should the overlap last?
- It depends on the size of the job and what stage it is at, but a week is a reasonable minimum on a mid-sized project. Less than three days is a formality, not a handover.
- Who should write the handover document?
- The outgoing engineer, reviewed by the incoming one and signed off by technical management. Having the incoming engineer review it before the outgoing one leaves is what surfaces the gaps in time.
- Is it a good idea to change site engineer when the project is going badly?
- Sometimes yes, and it is worth being clear about the cost: for six to eight weeks the project will get worse before it gets better. If the problem is method or resources rather than the person, the change adds a problem without solving the original one.
- How do I avoid depending on a single person?
- With a structured, searchable daily record, and with more than one person holding access and the habit of recording. Redundant information is cheap; reconstructing it is not.
- What do I do if the outgoing engineer will not cooperate?
- Document what was requested and what was delivered. And use the situation to ask why the project depended so heavily on one person: that is the real vulnerability, and the conflict merely made it visible.
Chilean, designing for Latin America. Field research surfaces what actually matters to clients, and that becomes products non-technical people adopt on their own — legal, education, accounting — and that show up in productivity from week one.
See all their articles →
