Thread by @swardley

X : What's the best way to measure performance?
Me : Outcomes.
X : How about effort spent?
Me : And, how are you planning to measure that?
X : With timesheets.
Me : That can be a dreadful idea ...

... there's certainly value in general broad strokes of estimated time and elapsed time but timesheets can have counter productive consequences such as context switching.
X : What's context switching?

Me: Hmmm. Have you ever asked someone who was really busy and focused on something to spend half a day doing something else?
X : Yes.
Me : That half a day cost a week. That's context switching.

X : No, it only cost half a day.
Me : You like to think that but you took someone out of the flow of what they were doing, got them to focus elsewhere and then they had to recreate that flow. It's not easy for many. Go interrupt an artist or author when they're in their flow.

... what probably happened, is the person did your half day thing then burnt extra time catching up to where they were. That's not a healthy thing to do on any form of continual basis. It's why I would tend to cut people off from the daily grind of unnecessary processes.

... it would be quite easy for me to create an environment - 15 minute blocks for timesheets plus other additional processes - in which many people would struggle to get anything actually done for the sake of performance measurement. Humans aren't robots.

I could then ratchet up the pressure with lots of urgent requests, constant changing focus and quickly achieve nothing at all bar a burnt out and rather stressed team. Within 6 months, I could create a gang like mentality at work, a culture that's almost beyond repair.

Me : In other words, be very careful with your performance management. I'm guessing you've just read some book on the subject?
X : Yes, how did you know?
Me : The outlandish claims made in many books tend to get people very excited. Act with haste, repent at leisure.

X : But how do I know if people are working if I don't measure this?
Me : Outcomes.
X : But they could be wasting time.
Me : And? Humans need downtime.
X : They could be abusing the system. I had to fire a person who used to pretend to be working by having a spreadsheet open?

Me : Were you managing them?
X : Yes
Me : So, who do you think the problem lay with?
X : They were messing around.
Me : You mean they were having some downtime (normal) or they weren't motivated and enthused about the work? In either case, the fault is with you.

Me : I had this security team, unmotivated, messing around, took a view that their life was mainly crap and no-one respected them. Transformed them in a few months. Highly engaged, motivated, outstanding work. Do you want to know the secret?
X : Yes.
Me : Listen to them.

Me : No amount of timesheets, KPIs, scorecards or other forms of "measurement" come close to the power of walking around and listening to people. If you want to improve performance, open those ears, put some walking shoes on and focus on outcomes.

The best ideas for how to improve your organisation don't exist in your head or with some consultant or in some book ... they almost always exist within the people within your organisation. Be warned, it requires humility to both listen and to actually hear those great ideas.

Far too often, people listen for things they want to hear rather than actually listen for what will change performance.

X : So, time and material isn't a valid measure of things?
Me : It's a completely valid purchasing approach for the novel and new but as a constraint i.e. this is how much I have to invest in trying to find a solution to whatever this is, think of it like venture capital ...

... so, you're interest is in whatever outcome you achieve i.e. success in finding / doing something or we didn't find / achieve anything (which is also a useful outcome to know).

... your interest is not, "how effectively did we spend the hours?"

Now, of course, once you have a known outcome your purchasing approach to that activity can change i.e. how much to achieve this outcome again?

As the act becomes more defined it changes to more COTS and the finally more utility / per unit basis.

But this is purchasing (how we buy something) which is not the same as performance (how we achieve something). Mix those up and you'll be trying to buy innovation by the kilo.

X : If I'm running a factory producing bricks then I'm interested in time spent.
Me : I used to work in FMCG. Our interest was product produced not in timesheets filled unless we're doing a time and motion study (which the outcome we're going for is ... more product produced).