## 4 Results  
In this experiment, excavation of the four footings using the conventional method required a total of 3650 s, whereas the machine guidance method completed the same task in 2652 s, demonstrating a 27.3% reduction in excavation time. Additionally, the conventional method required 68 excavation cycles, while the machine guidance method completed the excavation in 57 cycles, resulting in a 16.2% reduction in the number of excavation cycles. This efficiency gain was further reflected in the fill factor scoring results. The average fill factor score for the machine guidance system (mean = 3.47) was 0.43 points higher than that for the conventional method (mean = 3.04), indicating more efficient excavation (Table 3). A significant difference was observed in the relocation patterns of the excavations between the conventional and machine guidance methods. Under the conventional method, the operator relocated the excavator 20 times across the four footings, frequently adjusting its position to verify the excavation depth manually. In contrast, the MG excavation required only 10 relocations, reducing the number of positional adjustments by 50%. Additionally, the time spent at each excavation position varied considerably between the two methods. The average duration spent per location with the conventional method was 184 s, while the MG method included a significantly higher average duration of 224 s per location, indicating that the MG enabled the operator to remain in position for longer periods, performing more continuous and controlled excavation before repositioning was required. The relocation data further emphasized the operational advantages of MG. The conventional method required four to five relocations per footing, whereas the MG method required only two to three relocations per footing, representing an approximate 40% reduction in movement frequency (Figure 5a,b). The necessity of frequent repositioning under the conventional method stemmed from the limited ability to perform fine grading at extended reach, requiring the operator to adjust the positioning frequently to maintain control over the excavation depth. Furthermore, time-distributed excavation patterns illustrated in Figure 5c,d shows that the MG method not only reduced relocation frequency but also shortened the duration of excavation at each point, with the machine operating efficiently for longer periods from a single position. While both methods encountered similar challenges when leveling at extended distances, due to constraints relating to the hydraulic cylinder and boom-arm articulation, MG significantly mitigated this issue. The real-time depth guidance appears to have provided the operator with greater confidence in reaching the target level, reducing unnecessary repositioning while maximizing the use of the excavator's full work envelope. The time spent per relocation position also differed between methods. MG allowed the operator to remain in position for an extended duration, efficiently completing the excavation before relocating, whereas the conventional operator frequently paused, received verbal instructions, adjusted the excavation, and re-verified the depth, leading to shorter but more frequent stays at each position. The analysis of excavation workflow patterns further highlights the operational advantages of MG technology. In the conventional approach, the operator frequently had to stop excavation, receive verbal feedback from the signal person, and re-excavate incorrectly drug areas, resulting in inefficient excavation sequences. On the other hand, the MG system \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Item** & **Machine Guidance** & **Conventional** \\ \hline Total work duration & 2652 s & 3650 s \\ Number of excavation cycles & 57 & 68 \\ Average fill factor score & 3.47 & 3.04 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Comparison of Excavation Performance: duration, cycle, and fill factor score.