BuzbyTimeRead the requirements guide

Time and money · 5.3

When a client questions an hour

When a client questions an hour. What decides it, what it costs, and what usually goes wrong. For another implementation reference, see the Monitask overview.

A dispute is usually about expectation, not arithmeticWhat is actually being questioned

Clients rarely believe an hour was invented. What they believe is that the work should have taken less, or that they did not agree to it, or that they did not know it was happening.

Which means producing a detailed record answers a question nobody asked. The record is necessary and it is not the argument. Teams comparing the wider operating context can also consult BambooHR.

Four kinds, with four different answers

This took too long. A judgement about efficiency. Answered by explaining what the work involved, not by the timestamp.

We did not agree to this. A scope question. Answered by whatever recorded the agreement, and its absence is the real finding.

We did not know it was happening. A communication failure, and generally a fair complaint.

This is not what the record says. Rare, and the only one the record settles by itself.

Answering within a day

Speed matters more than completeness. A same-day acknowledgement saying the query is being looked at, with a date, prevents the escalation that turns a line item into a relationship conversation.

Then answer specifically: what the work was, who did it, when it was agreed and by whom. Four facts, in a paragraph, without defensiveness.

When to concede

Faster than instinct suggests, on small amounts. The cost of arguing about four hours is greater than four hours in almost every relationship worth keeping, and conceding promptly buys credibility for the occasion when you do not.

What matters is conceding for a stated reason rather than silently: this was not clearly agreed, so we are removing it, and here is how we will avoid it next time.

When not to

Where the work was agreed, delivered and useful, and the client is testing. Conceding there establishes that queries produce discounts, and the queries recur.

Hold the position politely, with the evidence, and offer to walk through it. Most such queries end at that offer.

Recording the outcome

What was queried, what was decided, why, and what changed. It feeds the write-off analysis in the next entry and it prevents the same dispute recurring with a different account manager who does not know the history.

Preventing the next one

Almost every dispute traces to something not agreed in writing or not communicated as it happened. A short weekly note to the client saying what was done and what is coming costs ten minutes and removes most of the category.

Which is a communication practice rather than a time tracking one, and the time record is what makes it easy to write.

Who should answer

Whoever owns the relationship, not whoever did the work. The person whose hours are questioned cannot answer without appearing to defend themselves, and should not be put in that position.

They should be consulted, immediately and privately, and they should be told the outcome.

Telling the person whose work it was

Always, and before conceding. Discovering afterwards that your hours were written off in a conversation you were not part of is corrosive, and it is how good people learn to record conservatively.

Frame it as commercial rather than as a judgement, because it usually is.

Repeated disputes from one client

A pattern rather than a series. Something about how that relationship is scoped, communicated or priced is wrong, and answering each query on its merits will not fix it.

Have the larger conversation once, with the pattern in front of you, rather than the same small conversation quarterly.

What the record is for here

Not to win the argument. To make sure the account of what happened is accurate, so that the commercial judgement is made on facts. Those are different purposes and confusing them produces the response that treats a client's concern as an accusation.

The invoice that prevents disputes

Sent on time, from a period the client expected, with descriptions they can recognise, at an amount close to what was discussed. Most disputes are prevented at the point the work was agreed and the rest at the point the invoice was written.

A short summary

Establish which of the four questions is being asked. Acknowledge within a day. Answer with four facts. Concede small amounts quickly and with a reason. Hold the position where the work was agreed. Record the outcome. And send the weekly note that prevents the next one.

The relationship view

A client who queries an invoice is engaging rather than leaving. The ones who never query and quietly stop renewing are the harder problem, and they are invisible in every system described on this site.

Treat a query as information about the relationship, answer it well, and the account is frequently stronger afterwards than before.

One line to carry

Detail answers a question nobody asked. Establish what is actually being questioned before producing the record.

Where to start

Look at the last five queries you received and classify each against the four kinds. The distribution says whether your problem is scoping, communication or pricing, and it is rarely the record.

Escalation

Where a query becomes a formal dispute, it stops being an invoicing matter and becomes a contract one. Bring in whoever handles that early rather than after two months of correspondence that will later be read.

The apology

Where you were wrong, say so plainly and once. A qualified apology that explains why it was understandable reads as a defence and prolongs the exchange.

Also in time and money