Measuring knowledge worker productivity
Maybe I'm not done on the whole measurement thing. A 2004 paper by Ramirez seems to have some opinions: Measuring knowledge worker productivity : a taxonomy, Journal of Intellectual Capital.
The literature review introduces some key questions:
There are a variety of different measurement methodologies: function point analysis; operations-based productivity measurement; data envelope analysis; efficiency, standard times, and operating efficiency; operation functional analysis; engineering operations analysis; administrative productivity indicator and multiple output productivity indicator; multi-minute measurement; achievement method -- completion of goals; normative productivity measurement methodology; percentage of time spent in value-added activities; professional time utilization; outcome as a measure; outcome input ratio; quality and activity; economic value added; cross functional analysis; generator activity measurement technique; interviews and surveys; peer evaluations; macro, micro, and mid-KW productivity models (quality, schedule, cost, absenteeism, overtime, lost time, cost reduction).
Wow. That's quite a list. Unfortunately it reminds me of the fanciful machines of the Theatra machinara or the explosion of life represented in the Burgess Shale. Each of these approaches represents a lot of work but is likely some sort of evolutionary dead-end. Fortunately, Ramirez provides a summary of the dimensions we see represented in the models (by frequency):
Quantity is the most referenced metric. Unfortunately, it's also the hardest to determine since so many organizations struggle with the issue of "what do we do?".
The literature review introduces some key questions:
- What is the objective of a task?
- What are the outputs that need to be produced to accomplish the task?
- How can the outputs be counted?
- How much and what kind of resources are needed to produce the outputs?
- What is a feasible and desirable operating plan for the next time period?
- Can the measures be replicated and standardized?
There are a variety of different measurement methodologies: function point analysis; operations-based productivity measurement; data envelope analysis; efficiency, standard times, and operating efficiency; operation functional analysis; engineering operations analysis; administrative productivity indicator and multiple output productivity indicator; multi-minute measurement; achievement method -- completion of goals; normative productivity measurement methodology; percentage of time spent in value-added activities; professional time utilization; outcome as a measure; outcome input ratio; quality and activity; economic value added; cross functional analysis; generator activity measurement technique; interviews and surveys; peer evaluations; macro, micro, and mid-KW productivity models (quality, schedule, cost, absenteeism, overtime, lost time, cost reduction).
Wow. That's quite a list. Unfortunately it reminds me of the fanciful machines of the Theatra machinara or the explosion of life represented in the Burgess Shale. Each of these approaches represents a lot of work but is likely some sort of evolutionary dead-end. Fortunately, Ramirez provides a summary of the dimensions we see represented in the models (by frequency):
- Quantity. Outputs (quantities) and outcomes (satisfaction, etc.)
- Costs and/or profitability.
- Timeliness.
- Autonomy.
- Efficiency (or "doing things right")
- Quality
- Effectiveness (or "doing the right things")
- Customer satisfaction
- Innovation/creativity
- Project success
- Responsibility/importance of work
- Perception of productivity
- Absenteeism
Quantity is the most referenced metric. Unfortunately, it's also the hardest to determine since so many organizations struggle with the issue of "what do we do?".
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home