Disruption & Productivity Loss Register

Disruption claims don't fail on method. They fail on records.

The measured mile is the most accepted way to quantify lost productivity there is. It needs one thing: a period of clean work to compare against, identified at the time. Almost nobody records that — so by the time the claim matters, the evidence for it never existed.

See a worked claim
Home › Disruption & Productivity Loss

Why these claims fail

The method was never the problem

The measured mile — comparing productivity in disrupted periods against your own clean periods — is the most widely accepted technique there is, and AACE 25R-03 names it a preferred methodology.

Everyone agrees on how to do it

The data is the problem

Lost productivity is usually not tracked separately at the time. Two years later nobody can say which weeks were clean, which were disrupted, or why.

No clean period means no measured mile

Reconstruction rarely works

Rebuilt from timesheets and memory long after the fact, the baseline becomes an argument rather than a record — and the other side gets to pick it apart.

Contemporaneous or not at all

Bundled claims collapse

A claim that quietly includes your own inefficiency invites a line-by-line attack that takes the credible part down with it.

Honesty is a tactic, not just ethics

A worked claim

Three trades, twelve periods, five impact events

Late drawings in Area B, stacked trades in Area C, blocked access, one rework event that was our own fault, and exceptional weather. The register classifies every period automatically from the events log.

Productivity loss
29%
Lost hours
2,445
Client-caused
2,292
Claim value
£113k
Two things the register does that a spreadsheet built for the occasion would not. It excluded 153 hours of our own rework from the claim without being asked — because the event was tagged Contractor. And it flagged the Electrical baseline as a crew mismatch: the clean periods averaged 3.6 operatives against 5.0 in the disrupted ones, a 40% difference. That is the first question the other side will ask, and it is better to find it yourself.

What's in it

1

Productivity Log

Quantity and man-hours by period, area and trade. Weekly, minutes to keep. Everything else derives from it.

2

Impact Events

What disrupted the work, where, when, and whose fault — with AACE-style cause codes and a Client / Contractor / Neutral tag.

3

Measured Mile

Finds your clean periods per trade and builds a quantity-weighted baseline rate, then computes lost hours against it.

Lost hrs = actual − (qty ÷ baseline rate)
4

Comparability Test

Flags thin baselines and crew mismatches — the two things that get a measured mile thrown out.

5

Quantum

Lost hours priced with on-costs, counting only what someone else caused, plus a pre-submission check.

6

Pairs with progress data

If you run the Progress Measurement System, the quantities and earned hours it produces feed straight in.

Pricing

Disruption Register

$279
One-time purchase
  • Contemporaneous productivity log
  • Impact events with cause codes
  • Automatic measured mile baseline
  • Comparability testing
  • Responsibility-split quantum

Complete suite

$1,399
All seven products
  • PROJECT CONTROL CENTER
  • Forecast Engine + 8 industry packs
  • Schedule Quality Analyser
  • Progress Measurement System
  • NEC4 Compliance Tracker
  • Disruption Register

Progress Measurement

$199
Feeds this one
  • Rules of credit progress
  • Produces the quantities
  • And the earned hours
  • Natural pairing
See the System

Questions

You compare your productivity during disrupted work against your own productivity on the same work when nothing was interfering. The difference is the loss. It is powerful precisely because the benchmark is your own performance, not a tender allowance or an industry table — which is why it survives scrutiny better than any other method.
Because you can only recover disruption someone else caused. The register tags every impact event Client, Contractor or Neutral, and the claim value counts only the Client-caused hours. In the sample that cuts the claim from 2,445 hours to 2,292 — smaller, and far more likely to survive.
It is the cross-examination, run early. The classic attack on a measured mile is that the baseline period was easier work, a smaller crew or better conditions. The sheet flags thin baselines and crew mismatches so you can answer the question before someone else asks it.
Quantity installed and man-hours by period, area and trade — weekly. Minutes. That is the entire discipline; the analysis is automatic. The cost of not doing it is that the claim cannot be made at all.
No, and the workbook says so plainly. It quantifies loss against your own clean performance. Causation still needs the narrative, the records and usually a delay analyst. Anything claiming to prove causation from a spreadsheet is overselling.
Then a measured mile is the wrong method and the tool will show you that — a trade with fewer than three clean periods is flagged TOO THIN. AACE 25R-03 sets out other approaches for that situation.

Start the record before you need it

Kept weekly it costs minutes. Reconstructed later it usually cannot be done at all.