TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:Re: Measuring Productivity From:"Brian F. Gregg, N04-3A, ext. 2724" <bgregg -at- FOXBORO -dot- COM> Date:Wed, 9 Nov 1994 17:25:11 LCL
>> Communicators (the creative types that we are) don't like being
>> linked to productivity.
>I certainly agree with that. Are engineers tracked for productivity?
>Programmers? When part of your job is creating something or solving
>problems, the productivity measurements fall flat.
>I was once required to list daily how many pages I edited (simple, medium,
(cut about the counting she had to do)
>...and go back to doing the work I was hired to do. My boss would tell you
>I was also hired to do the productivity measurements.
>However, I felt it was more important to translate engineereze into nice
>readable copy. I was really good at that.
>Was I wrong? Did you ever have to count pages?
While I feel that metrics are necessary in planning improvement, metrics
that make one count one's output are of the wrong type. What really should
be measured is the quality (errors per page, document, etc. or first pass
yield). Some of these may involve measuring quantity. In those cases, there
should be some automated mechanism in place. I believe manual counting is
"counter"productive, not to mention a morale crusher.