Facilitating agreement in disruption claims through disruption analysis methods

Disruption in construction projects is one of the major causes of claims. The extent of each contracting party's responsibility for disruptions in a project is a frequently asked question in such claims. Over the years, various disruption analysis methods have been developed to address this question, but the consensus among experts and contracting parties on this matter is still sparse. Such lack of agreement on a uniform disruption analysis method often results in disputes between contracting parties. An investigation of the recommended disruption analysis methods is conducted in this research by interviewing 22 disruption claims experts in Australia. Results revealed that the majority of experts preferred using the baseline productivity method (23%) followed by the measured mile method (18%) because they promote objectivity in the assessment. Results from this study suggest that the objectivity in analysis methods along with information availability can enable agreement between contracting parties for their application in disruption claims. This study identifies the need for an established information management system to facilitate resolution of disruption claims.