Timeline for How to measure human utilisation?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 31, 2019 at 18:38 | history | edited | 030 |
edited tags
|
|
| Mar 24, 2017 at 7:55 | vote | accept | Liath | ||
| Mar 16, 2017 at 11:15 | vote | accept | Liath | ||
| Mar 24, 2017 at 7:54 | |||||
| Mar 14, 2017 at 19:57 | answer | added | Jiri Klouda | timeline score: 7 | |
| Mar 8, 2017 at 19:26 | comment | added | David Bock | An answer here should also use Martin Fowler's "You Cannot Measure Productivity" - martinfowler.com/bliki/CannotMeasureProductivity.html | |
| Mar 8, 2017 at 6:49 | comment | added | Liath | Re Bret see my question on Man, Method, Machine and Process! | |
| Mar 7, 2017 at 23:44 | comment | added | Jiri Klouda | @Evgeny it is not Bret's work that is considered the constraint. It is Bret. His work piles up in front of him. He was the only one who could do it, he was the constraint. If work coming to Bret was the constraint, then the tasks blocking that work would be piling up. That would be different situation. | |
| Mar 7, 2017 at 23:40 | comment | added | Jiri Klouda | For SRE the Google SRE book suggest to not handle more than 2 incidents per shift (not average, maximum) and that is considered full utilization. | |
| Mar 7, 2017 at 22:21 | comment | added | Tensibai | @AssafLavie I've worked in all kind of companies from 4 people to missions in 10k people enterprises and draw the same observations as yours. I don't think this question can have a real answer, more answer addressing alternatives and why it's a fallacy to measure people busyness. | |
| Mar 7, 2017 at 16:41 | comment | added | Assaf Lavie | I have to say, this all sounds clever in theory, but I've never actually seen this happen in reality (waiting time so high for people who are basically 100% busy). I've worked at 12-13 companies. So, there you go, that's my data. Not much I can say to argue the theory beyond that. I guess all the places I've been, even busy people can react and re-prioritize when the org needs it. edit important to note, I've only worked at startups, ever. This could be skewing my POV. | |
| Mar 7, 2017 at 12:14 | comment | added | Liath | @Evgeny looking forward to the full answer! | |
| Mar 7, 2017 at 12:13 | comment | added | Evgeny Zislis | Constraint is rarely a human, even in The Phoenix Project, Bret was first a constraint - but its "his work" that is the actual constraint. | |
| Mar 7, 2017 at 12:12 | comment | added | Liath | @Evgeny I agree 100% improvements made anywhere but the constraint are wasted. But I still need to know how busy my constraint resource is surely? | |
| Mar 7, 2017 at 11:41 | comment | added | Evgeny Zislis | Before I have time to write a full answer, I'll just add that in ToC you abandon efficiencies everywhere, to focus on efficiency only on the constraint. Because that allows everywhere else to absorb variety and avoid creating waste (quote Lean here. like overproduction, too much inventory, etc...) since that is non-value-added (quote Lean again) activities. | |
| Mar 7, 2017 at 11:38 | comment | added | Liath | @Evgeny - added to reading list, I also came across it in The Goal... I just based my question off TTP as it gives a formula but no way to measure the values :( | |
| Mar 7, 2017 at 11:36 | comment | added | Evgeny Zislis | This deserves an answer that quotes the book Slack amazon.com/dp/0767907698. The myth of efficiency by burning resources at 100% is also the main topic in Theory of Constraints. | |
| Mar 7, 2017 at 11:19 | history | asked | Liath | CC BY-SA 3.0 |