"The Measured Mile – a Better Way of Using an Old Tool" by Glen R. Palmer, PSP, CFCC

Introduction:

The “measured mile” analysis is usually thought of as the industry’s best approach for analyzing and quantifying productivity disruptions. Most productivity experts agree that the major obstacle in performing this kind of analysis is validating that the work analyzed, in both the baseline and impacted periods, is comparable. More often than not this is also the main obstacle in convincing a “trier of fact” that an analysis is valid. Surely, it would be unrealistic to compare the productivity of above ground large bore pipe work versus above ground small bore pipe work, using the traditional approach of comparing expended worker hours per linear foot (unit rate basis). This work is not comparable and would yield false productivity results if compared on a unit rate basis.

The second most important consideration in performing a measured mile analysis is the level of detail of which both worker hours and work progress are tracked. The productivity of above ground large bore pipe can only be evaluated if both the expended worker hours and installation progress are tracked at that level of detail or lower. If, for example, work progress for above ground large bore pipe is tracked but the expended worker hours for all above ground piping work is lumped together then that would make it invalid to perform a measured mile analysis at the above ground large bore pipe level of detail.