It was the third day on site when the question came up, as it often does in water loss projects: “How many days of drying are you charging?” The question itself wasn’t unreasonable, but it revealed a deeper issue that continues to challenge the restoration industry—how competence in restorative drying is measured. Too often, drying success is judged by the number of days on an invoice rather than by the science, decision-making, and documentation that led to the outcome. Three days has quietly become an unofficial benchmark, sometimes even a ceiling, yet competence has never been defined by how quickly equipment is removed or how short an invoice appears.
True competence in restorative drying has little to do with time and everything to do with understanding, process, and proof. The truly competent restorer recognizes that drying is not a race against the calendar, but a controlled, scientific process governed by material behavior and environmental forces. Two contractors can stand in the same structure, install similar equipment, and still produce vastly different outcomes depending on how well they understand what they are doing and why they are doing it.
A competent restorer should be able to clearly explain what materials were affected by water and how those materials were tested. They should know precisely where each test site was located within the structure and be able to explain why those locations were selected. They should understand what the expected moisture content is for a given material in a specific geographic region and in each season and be able to support that conclusion with logic, reference materials, or historical data. Drying goals should not be arbitrary; they should be established, based on material type, unaffected control areas, and pre-loss conditions. The restorer should also be able to explain how close a material must be to its dry standard to be considered “dry enough” and why that threshold is appropriate.
Beyond achieving a drying goal, a competent restorer understands risk. They should be able to evaluate whether sufficient moisture remains in materials at any point during the process to support microbial growth and explain how that determination was made. This requires more than reading a moisture meter; it requires understanding moisture dynamics, equilibrium conditions, and time-of-wetness considerations. Drying is not just about removing moisture quickly, but about managing moisture responsibly.
Many professionals focus heavily on whether dehumidifiers are removing water from the air, often measured through grain depression. While this information has value, it is not the most important question in the drying process. The more meaningful question is what effect the drying environment is having on both wet and unaffected hygroscopic materials at any given moment. Materials do not dry simply because equipment is present; they dry because appropriate vapor pressure differentials are created and maintained. The physics governing these processes are not new. More than two centuries ago, John Dalton described the relationships between temperature, pressure, and vapor behavior; principles that still underpin modern psychrometry and drying science today. What has changed is not the science, but our willingness to apply it rigorously in the field.
With that understanding comes informed decision-making. Equipment should never be added or removed arbitrarily because each change to the drying setup alters the forces acting on materials. So those changes should be intentional and defensible. A competent restorer can explain why equipment was adjusted, what impact that adjustment had on the drying environment, and how those decisions influenced the rate and effectiveness of the drying.
Documentation is where competence becomes visible. A truly competent restorer does not document simply to satisfy administrative requirements, but to validate decisions and demonstrate outcomes. Proper documentation confirms that meters were functioning correctly, that the meter technology used was appropriate for the materials being tested, and that manufacturer-recommended correction factors were applied when necessary. When multiple testing methods are used, competent restorers recognize that differing results do not indicate failure but rather require interpretation. Understanding why readings differ and what those differences mean, is a hallmark of professional judgment.
One of the most misunderstood aspects of restorative drying is determining when materials are “done.” Dry does not mean zero moisture. It means that materials have returned to an acceptable equilibrium consistent with their pre-loss condition. Competent restorers know how to establish this endpoint, how to compare affected areas to unaffected control areas, and how to determine when additional drying will no longer produce meaningful benefit. This determination should be supported by data, not by pressure to demobilize or conform to an arbitrary timeline.
The contractor who consistently completes drying in three days may appear efficient on paper, but consistency in duration does not equate to consistency in competence. Structures, materials, water sources, and environmental conditions vary widely, therefore drying outcomes should reflect these variables. A contractor who always finishes in the same number of days regardless of circumstances may not be demonstrating mastery but rather applying a rigid formula that overlooks material behavior and risk. Ironically, this “three-day” approach often leads to unresolved moisture issues that surface later, creating larger problems for all parties involved.
If a project takes four, five, six days, or more, and the contractor can demonstrate their process with clear documentation, sound science, and defensible decision-making, that contractor is not inefficient. They are competent. They are preserving materials, mitigating loss, and reducing downstream risk. But most importantly, they can prove their results.
Progress in the restoration industry requires professionals to challenge convention thoughtfully and responsibly. While it is easy to criticize established practices; it is far more valuable to support change with verifiable science. As our understanding of drying science has advanced, we should move away from vague descriptors like “art” or “craft” that obscure accountability. The laws governing moisture movement have been understood since Dalton’s time, and we now possess both the tools and the knowledge to quantify drying forces rather than guess at them.
Competence in restorative drying is not demonstrated by counting grains, temperatures, or meter readings in isolation. It is demonstrated by understanding how those measurements interact and what they reveal about material behavior. When professionals encounter training or guidance that conflicts with proven scientific authority, they have an obligation to question it constructively, provide evidence, and advocate for improvement. Educational bodies, in turn, have a responsibility to align instruction with validated science.
In the end, competence in restorative drying is not measured by how quickly equipment is removed or how short an invoice appears. It is measured by the ability to responsibly dry a structure to acceptable pre-loss conditions while preserving materials and mitigating loss. More than anything else, it is measured by the ability to prove the outcome. The truly competent restorer does not avoid questions; they welcome them, because their work can withstand scrutiny.
For restorers at every level—technicians, project managers, owners, and educators—the challenge is clear. Refuse to be defined by shortcuts, arbitrary timelines, or invoice-driven expectations. Commit instead to understanding the science behind your work, documenting your decisions, and being able to explain not just what you did, but why you did it and what result it produced.
Recognize that insurers and clients have every right to question, review, and challenge both your work and your invoice. That scrutiny is not an attack on professionalism—it is a natural and necessary part of the claims and restoration process. The competent restorer welcomes that review because their documentation, methodology, and outcomes can withstand it.
Ask better questions on every loss. Demand better answers from yourself and your teams. Invest in education grounded in verifiable science rather than convenience or tradition. When drying takes longer than expected, let the data—not pressure—guide your decisions. When it takes less time, be prepared to demonstrate why.
The future of the restoration industry belongs to professionals who can demonstrate competence, not just claim it. Raise the standard in your own work, challenge it respectfully in others, and be prepared to defend your process with clarity and confidence. That is how trust is earned, losses are truly mitigated, and the profession moves forward.
Credit Source: Leadership in Restorative Drying, Larsen, K
Lorne McIntyre CR WLS FLS CLS ERS CSDS
Lorne McIntyre is a recognized expert in the cleaning and restoration industry, known for solving complex problems and raising the bar across the field. As Principal Technical Advisor at Verify Appraisal & Consulting, he’s a trusted resource for clarity, credibility, and results.
A Technical Trainer for the Restoration Industry Association (RIA) and an IICRC Approved Instructor with the Restoration Science Academy, Lorne holds all three IICRC Master Certifications and every RIA pillar designation—including the prestigious Certified Restorer (CR).
He also contributes to industry advancement through active roles on several RIA and IICRC committees.
To connect with Lorne, reach out at [email protected]
Related Posts
