Should you adopt one-person surveying? Cost differences with conventional surveying and 7 advantages

Table of Contents

• What is one-person surveying?

• Where do cost differences compared to conventional surveying arise?

• Benefit 1: Easier to optimize personnel allocation

• Benefit 2 On-site travel and preparations become less burdensome

• Advantage 3 Well-suited to small-scale sites and short-duration tasks

• Benefit 4 Fast response to re-measurements and additional checks

• Benefit 5 Staff can make more consistent decisions

• Advantage 6: Easier to shorten the workflow leading up to data organization

• Advantage 7 Well suited to operations in an era of labor shortages

• Worksites Suited to Solo Surveying and Those That Are Not

• Decision points to check before implementation

• Summary

What is one-person surveying?

One-person surveying refers to an operation in which a single operator completes positioning, recording, and verification on site, as the name suggests. In conventional surveying, it was common for the observer and an assistant to divide roles, with multiple people sharing tasks such as equipment setup, sighting, recording, guidance, and verification. In contrast, one-person surveying allows some of the processes that previously assumed two or more people to be carried out by a single person thanks to advances in equipment and a review of work procedures.

The reason this topic is attracting attention is not only the labor shortage at worksites but also the fragmentation of workload. Surveying work that used to be carried out in batches over half-day to full-day periods is now increasingly required repeatedly at finer timings—pre-construction checks, layout setting during construction, recording as-built conditions, and comparisons before and after repairs. In such cases, organizing multiple personnel to mobilize each time can be a significant burden at some sites.

However, 1-person surveying is not simply a matter of reducing the number of personnel. If you do not review everything—from site conditions, required accuracy, and working time to the surrounding environment and methods of safety management—it can actually become inefficient. Therefore, many practitioners who are searching will want to know points such as "Will it really be done by one person?", "Will it be cheaper than conventional surveying?", and "Won't the quality suffer?"

To conclude, one-person surveying is not a panacea for every site. However, if introduced after carefully assessing suitability, it offers significant advantages: it makes staffing more flexible than traditional surveying, reduces wasted setup and planning, and makes it easier to increase the frequency of measurements. The apparent cost difference also changes when you consider the overall workflow—not just the equipment differences—but the number of people sent to the site, waiting times, number of revisits, and administrative processing.

Where do cost differences compared to conventional surveying arise?

When considering the cost difference between one-person surveying and conventional surveying, the first thing to note is not to evaluate surveying costs based solely on the presence or absence of equipment. In actual fieldwork, cost differences often arise from peripheral operations rather than from the observations themselves. For example, conditions such as who goes to the site, how many people need to travel, how long waiting times are, and whether personnel must be reassembled if re-measurement is required all add up to determine the total cost.

In traditional surveying, because roles are clearly defined, it is easier to ensure work reliability; on the other hand, it inevitably requires coordinating multiple people's time simultaneously. Even at sites where the observation itself can be completed quickly, assembling, traveling, preparing, checking, and tidying up all have to be done with multiple people, so time spent on non-working activities tends to accumulate. This difference becomes more apparent when sites are scattered or when short verification tasks must be repeated several times.

On the other hand, one-person surveying makes it easy for a single worker to enter the site at their own discretion, complete a brief check, and return. This not only makes it easier to keep total labor costs down, but also reduces losses resulting from schedule coordination. In particular, on construction management and maintenance sites there are many situations where it is difficult to tie up multiple people solely for surveying, and this operational lightness translates into a cost difference.

Also, the cost difference becomes significant when re-measurements occur. With conventional surveying, even if only a small additional item needs to be checked, personnel must be reassembled, and as a result the per-visit burden tends to increase. With one-person surveying, the surveyor can quickly recheck during spare time, making it easier to prevent stagnation across the entire site. This is not a direct matter of monetary cost, but in terms of avoiding schedule delays and rework, it makes a very large difference.

Another often-overlooked issue is the burden that includes administrative work. In a multi-person setup, it can take time to organize information such as who measured what, when the data were taken, and what was verbally confirmed on site. One-person surveying allows the person in charge to handle everything from observation to recording consistently, which makes the correspondence between field notes and data clearer and reduces the verification work in subsequent processes.

In other words, the cost difference cannot simply be dismissed as "cheaper because it's a one-person crew" or "more expensive because it's a two-person crew." What matters is not the per-observation unit cost but how the total amount of arrangements, travel, revisits, verifications, and post-processing for the site as a whole changes. From that perspective, one-person surveying often has an advantage, especially on sites with many short-duration tasks, sites with a high frequency of checks, and sites where the person in charge needs to move quickly at their discretion.

Benefit 1: Easier to optimize personnel allocation

The greatest advantage of one-person surveying is, first and foremost, the flexibility in personnel allocation. With conventional surveying, multiple people must be secured for the same time slot to carry out the survey, and coordination becomes more difficult the busier the season. Because the site has many tasks besides surveying—construction management, safety management, schedule coordination, and so on—allocating people for every survey itself tends to become a burden on site operations.

With one-person surveying, the person in charge can work alone, making it less likely that surrounding tasks will be disrupted. For example, they can confirm reference points during a short period in the morning, take measurements of construction locations during free time in the afternoon, or check the as-built condition before sunset — all without involving other staff. This difference may seem small, but it makes a very significant impact on day-to-day site operations.

Moreover, optimizing personnel allocation is not simply about reducing the number of workers. By enabling tasks that originally required two people to be completed by one, surplus personnel can be reassigned to other important duties. On-site tasks such as organizing site photos, checking materials, coordinating with partner companies, and reviewing safety documents are always prone to being postponed. Introducing one-person surveying can potentially reduce the backlog of such peripheral tasks.

Furthermore, having a fixed person in charge is also an advantage. If the team changes with each survey, differences tend to emerge in how survey points are interpreted and in checking habits, but with one-person surveying a single person continuously oversees the work, so decision criteria tend to stabilize. Rather than thinking of it as reducing personnel, when viewed as a mechanism to use limited personnel more effectively, the value of one-person surveying becomes clearer.

Benefit 2 On-site travel and preparations become easier

Surveying often takes more time for preparations than for the observations themselves. The sequence of traveling to the site, transporting equipment, setting it up, calling out to one another to align positions, and packing up when finished becomes more cumbersome as the number of workers increases. In conventional surveying, while those procedures are well established, they tend to require the same amount of preparation even for short tasks.

One-person surveying makes it easier to streamline such procedures. Being able to go to the right place when needed, perform quick checks, and immediately move on to the next task means surveying is less likely to interrupt the on-site workflow. This mobility makes a big difference, especially on sites where you need to cover a wide area in a short time—such as pavement repairs, equipment upgrades, temporary installation checks, and inspection assistance.

Also, when the setup becomes less cumbersome, the psychological barrier to taking measurements is lowered. Under the conventional system, people sometimes feel that "it's too much trouble to gather people just for this level of check" and proceed without measuring in situations where they should. However, with single-person surveying, it becomes easier to verify minor concerns on the spot, reducing decisions that rely solely on intuition and experience. This also brings benefits in terms of quality.

The ease of movement and setup is a point that those responsible for multiple sites are especially likely to appreciate. When you need to visit many locations in a single day, it is not realistic to assemble multiple people at each site. One-person surveying suppresses the effort per job while allowing for more frequent checks, and as a result it becomes easier to increase the density of site management.

Benefit 3: Well-suited to small-scale sites and short-duration work

One-person surveying is particularly effective on small-scale sites and for short verification tasks. For example, position checks within a limited area, simple dimensional checks before and after construction, identifying localized repair areas, and verifying interfaces with existing structures—tasks that themselves are not long, but under conventional arrangements the preparation tends to be heavier.

At such sites, it is not so much that the quality or reliability of conventional surveying becomes excessive, but that the necessary operating costs tend to appear relatively large. In other words, the scale of the work and the size of the team do not match. One-person surveying is an effective way to bridge that gap. If a single person can go to the site, cover only the necessary scope, record the results, and return, the overall tempo of the site can be maintained.

Also, at small-scale sites it is often not possible to have a team dedicated solely to surveying on site at all times. It can be realistic for construction management or maintenance personnel to carry out surveying while also performing site inspections. Adopting the concept of one-person surveying in such cases makes it easier to handle the necessary observations within routine daily work without relying too heavily on external arrangements or additional staff.

Of course, small scale does not mean that everything can be done by one person. In locations with heavy surrounding traffic, large differences in elevation, or a high risk of third-party accidents, it may be appropriate to have multiple people involved for safety reasons. That said, even taking that into account, many sites include tasks that have been assumed to require two or more people but can actually be performed adequately by a single person. The smaller the site, the greater the effect of reassessing this.

Benefit 4 Quick response to re-measurements and additional checks

At a construction site, it's surprisingly rare that a measurement is taken once and that's the end of it. During the work you may want to reconfirm a position, discover discrepancies with the drawings and need to re-verify the as-built conditions, or require additional dimensions for discussions. Although these re-measurements and additional checks are small in terms of workload, if they are delayed they can affect the overall schedule.

In conventional surveying, even for such minor re-checks, staffing adjustments are often required, and as a result responses can be delayed. During that time, the site may put decisions on hold or proceed with provisional measures, increasing the risk of rework. With single-person surveying, the person in charge can move swiftly when needed, lowering the barrier to re-measurement.

The speed of re-measurement not only makes things more convenient but also contributes to quality assurance. On sites where you can check questionable points on the spot, there are fewer instances of proceeding with construction based on uncertain assumptions. Rather than requiring major corrections later, it is overall more efficient to make small verifications at an early stage. One-person surveying plays a role in improving the accuracy of on-site decisions by making it easier to increase the number of checks.

Also, clients or other stakeholders may suddenly request confirmations. If major arrangements are required each time, response speed will vary. If a one-person surveying system is in place, the person who needs the information can go collect it and is more likely to have it organized the same day. This kind of responsiveness also helps build trust on site.

Benefit 5 Easier for the person in charge to make consistent decisions

The quality of surveying is not determined solely by the performance of the equipment. The accumulation of judgments—such as what to use as a reference, which points to prioritize, and how to interpret surrounding conditions—affects how usable the results are. In conventional surveying, while there are benefits to dividing tasks, subtle differences in judgment standards can arise when personnel change.

In single-person surveying, because a single surveyor is involved consistently from confirming current site conditions through observation, recording, and bringing the data back, it becomes easier to keep the interpretation of the data consistent. For example, background information—such as why a particular point was measured, what the surveyor paid attention to during observation, and any anomalies or things that felt off on site—is held by the surveyor and therefore easier to organize. This is also advantageous when later producing drawings or reports.

Also, when the same person in charge continues to monitor the site, they are more likely to notice changes. Because it becomes easier to grasp what has changed since the previous inspection, where there might be discrepancies, and from what point the situation began to change, the site can be understood not as a single observation result but as a sequence of events on site. This is particularly effective for projects that require observations over time, such as renovations, maintenance management, and phased construction.

Of course, because excessive reliance on individuals makes handovers difficult, establishing record-keeping rules is essential. However, there are many situations where single-person surveying, in which the person in charge has a clearly defined scope of responsibility, makes quality control easier than having multiple people work with ambiguous roles. What matters is not completing everything by one person, but organizing the processes that can be handled by a single person and improving the consistency of judgment.

Benefit 6: Easier to shorten the workflow up to data organization

Data measured on site does not become valuable only after being taken back. How it is recorded, organized, and shared on site affects the speed of the next process. In conventional surveying, information is handed over between the observer and the recorder, and between field staff and office staff, so the more items that need checking, the longer it can take to organize.

Single-person surveying makes it easy for the observer to carry the work through to processing and organization, so the linkage between the data and on-site conditions becomes clear. Because the observer knows which photo documents which location and which numerical value corresponds to which verification item, misinterpretation later is less likely to occur. Especially on sites where construction management and survey verification are closely linked, this difference directly translates into faster overall operations.

Furthermore, the speed of data organization also makes reporting and sharing easier. If what was confirmed on site can be delivered to stakeholders on the same day, decisions on the next steps can move forward. Traditionally, even after surveying was completed, information could be held up while waiting to be processed, but one-person surveying makes it easier to reduce that backlog.

Furthermore, by narrowing down in advance the items to be recorded on site, you can collect the necessary and sufficient data without undue effort. Rather than recording every detail, an operation in which the person in charge gathers information that matches the purpose and that they understand is an approach well suited to one-person surveying. As a result, the volume of data will be neither excessive nor insufficient, and the burden of organizing it becomes easier to keep low.

Benefit 7: Well-suited to operations in an era of labor shortages

In construction, civil engineering, and maintenance sites, securing personnel is expected to remain a major challenge going forward. While the number of experienced workers is decreasing, the number of management items required on site is increasing, and surveying is no exception. In this situation, what is important is creating systems that can operate with a small workforce. One-person surveying is one realistic option.

The measures for addressing labor shortages referred to here do not simply mean reducing personnel. If you only have operations designed for multiple people, work tends to stop as soon as someone is absent. On the other hand, increasing processes that can be completed by a single person improves the overall flexibility of the organization. Being able to carry out at least the minimum checks even on days when staff are short is extremely important from the perspective of maintaining processes.

Moreover, one-person surveying can be relatively easy to introduce for junior staff and employees with multiple responsibilities. Of course, sufficient training is necessary, but if the objectives are clear and the procedures are well organized, even a small number of people can more easily gain experience. One-person surveying is effective in transitioning from the traditional setup—where operations couldn't run without specific experienced personnel—to a system that can be reproduced under a set of consistent rules.

Furthermore, in an era of labor shortages, it is important to build a system that does not rely entirely on outsourcing. Rather than leaving everything to external contractors, enabling in-house personnel to carry out required checks when necessary has significant benefits for both speed and information management. One-person surveying should be regarded as a review of the operational practices that form that foundation.

Worksites Suitable and Unsuitable for One-Person Surveying

We've reviewed the benefits so far, but one-person surveying is not unconditionally suitable for every site. Identifying which sites it suits and which it doesn't is essential to maximizing the effectiveness of its adoption.

A good fit is sites where many small-scale verification tasks are required. The mobility of one-person surveying proves valuable at sites where short surveys that can be completed quickly—such as layout assistance, checking existing structures, confirming key points of as-built conditions, and routine maintenance patrol records—occur repeatedly. Also, when sites are dispersed and it’s necessary to visit multiple locations in a single day, the advantage of being able to work alone becomes greater. Furthermore, sites where the person in charge understands the construction work and can readily judge what needs to be checked are also well suited to one-person surveying.

On the other hand, unsuitable are sites with high safety risks. On roads that require traffic control, at heights or on slopes, in areas where heavy machinery operates in close proximity, or in locations with frequent pedestrian traffic, even if surveying itself is technically possible, assistants or spotters are necessary to ensure safety. Also, at sites where a wide area must be captured at high accuracy all at once, or where complex control-point management is required, the conventional multi-person team may be more appropriate.

The important point is not to think of surveying methods as being in opposition. Rather than making an either-or choice between one-person surveying and traditional surveying, it is more realistic to use them selectively depending on each site. By organizing roles—routine checks handled by one-person surveying, and formal control management or high-risk locations handled by multi-person teams—you can leverage the strengths of both.

Key decision points to review before implementation

When introducing one-person surveying, it's important to first clarify why you are doing it. Whether you want to reduce labor costs, speed up re-surveys, or increase the number of on-site inspections will change which operational approach is appropriate. Introducing it with unclear objectives will simply concentrate the burden on a single person and is likely to provoke resistance at the site.

Next to confirm is the division of the target tasks. Rather than having one person perform all surveying work, it is necessary to separate tasks that can be completed by a single person from those that should be carried out by multiple people. If this division is unclear, it will cause problems both in terms of safety and quality. Practically, it makes sense to start with short verification tasks and tasks whose procedures have already been standardized.

Furthermore, you should also establish the methods for recording and sharing. One-person surveying benefits from the consistency of the person responsible, but conversely, records that only that person understands cannot be used by the organization. By defining in advance which items to retain, in what format to share them, and at what stage supervisors and stakeholders should review them, you can operate while preventing dependence on a single individual.

Establishing safety rules is also essential. You need to organize the scope of work that can be performed alone, locations where entry alone is prohibited, means of communication, emergency response procedures, and procedures for checking the surroundings, so that decisions can be made according to site conditions. Because one-person surveying is convenient, it is important to clearly define what can be done and what must not be done.

Finally, it's important to have a perspective for evaluating the effects of implementation. For example, by looking at operational changes—such as whether the number of revisits has decreased, the burden of scheduling has been reduced, missed confirmations have declined, or the time to reporting has shortened—you can more easily capture the results as concrete on-site improvements rather than mere impressions. One-person surveying should be considered not as the introduction of equipment, but as an initiative to redesign the on-site workflow.

Summary

Whether to introduce one-person surveying should not be judged simply by whether it can reduce the headcount. What matters is how much it can reduce the hidden burdens that arise in conventional surveying, such as personnel coordination, travel, waiting, re-measurement, and information organization. In particular, the benefits of introducing one-person surveying tend to become apparent at sites with many short checks, sites where small-scale tasks are dispersed, and sites where the person in charge needs the discretion to act quickly.

On the other hand, in locations where ensuring safety is difficult or in situations that require complex control of standards, the conventional multi-person system is more appropriate. Therefore, the optimal solution is not to adopt either approach exclusively, but to review the division of roles according to site conditions. Routine checks should be handled quickly by single-person surveying, while critical operations and high-risk areas should be reliably covered by conventional multi-person surveying. This approach should be the most adaptable to real-world sites.

If you are going to proceed with one-person surveying from now on, it is important to start with small verification tasks and determine which processes saved time and in which situations decisions became faster. On that basis, by establishing an integrated, easy-to-use system that covers positioning, recording, and sharing, on-site productivity can be steadily improved.

If you are considering a setup that makes it easy for a single person to move around the site and handle location information on the spot, options like LRTK (an iPhone-mounted GNSS high-precision positioning device) are worth considering. Rather than treating surveying as a large-scale operation as in the past, for field personnel who want to check things where and when necessary and immediately move on to the next decision, it can be a way to enhance the practicality of one-person surveying. If you do not want to reduce the intensity of on-site response despite labor shortages, it is worth reviewing your operations to include such practices.