How much time do spend at work ... you know ... working? 19

[bradpa77]

I am trying something new this year at work. I've decided to keep track of my productive time at work. I made a spreadsheet that keeps track of what I do and whether or not it's productive time or non-productive time. If you haven't tried this, I highly recommend it. You'd be shocked to see how much time is taken up by doing non-work related things during the day. I'm not just talking about social and slack off time. I was suprised to see how much time is spent on bathroom trips, snack and beverage runs, and the like. I have been aiming to average 70% of my time towards productive work time. It's actually a bit harder to do than I had expected. I thought it would be easy to get that number, but a little time talking here, some time on the internet there, it all adds up ... and quick.

So basically I was just curious with everyone else. Have you tried this? How much time do you spend working and how much time do you spend doing other ... extracurricular activities?

Brad

 

[SlideRuleEra]

thread731-128792

http://www.SlideRuleEra.net

 

[bradpa77]

Thanks SlideRuleEra, I read that post. It was exactly what I was looking for.

Anyone want to post their numbers anyways, go for it. I'd love to hear it. It might make for a good thread again even though it's been done before.

Brad

 

[Ashereng]

I think we are missing the point. How much time do you spend in a day doing productive work measures effort. What I think you should be looking for is results.

The question should not be how much time you are spending on doing productive work. Instead, the question should be how much time does it take to produce a result.

Worker A spends 4 hours and produce 10 units of work. Worker B spends 8 hours and produce 10 units of work. Too many managers miss the point and tell worker A to get back to work. The result? Worker A is dissatisfied.

 

[MikeHalloran]

I suspect that they teach the tactic of actually measuring your own work effort|output|whatever in business school, because every new MBA- clad manager I've ever had to break dow... er, in, demanded it within his first week.

The claimed percentages in the referenced thread are obviously eyeball estimates, colored by self- perception.

One time, I did actually meaure the time that I, nominally an engineer, spent doing actual engineering work, recorded meticulously with a resolution of tens of minutes or better, averaged over a number of weeks. The average time spent doing actual engineering work, in a week?

Two hours.

The point of the exercise is to induce you to measure precisely that you're not as productive as you think you are. The MBA will then assert without proof that it's your fault, which is sort of the heart of the trick.

Of course you'e not productive; you're wasting your time in endless meetings with idiot MBAs, and running stupid errands for them, and fighting myriad stupid battles with minor functionaries who are nominally present to help you, but actually only present obstacles.



Mike Halloran
Pembroke Pines, FL, USA

 

[MedicineEng]

And the spreadsheet recorder is considered productive or non-productive time?
I ask this because with that ammount of detail, it should take some time to fill it up.

 

[ziggi]

As the lead character in the movie "Office space" states to the productivity consultants, "In any given week, I'd say I work about 15 minutes"....nuff said.

 

[bioengr82]

ziggi,

That was also in the orginal thread.

 

[ziggi]

It applies then

 

[MikeHalloran]

Well, I did it on a paper spreadsheet, before computer spreadsheets were available, and duly accounted for the time consumed by that pointless activity. And every other pointless activity to wihch I was involuntarily committed.

Surely the exercise was intended to point out to me how much of my time I myself wasted. It did. It also pointed out to me that much more of my time was wasted by others.

So, when the MBA asked if the exercise had been educational, I gave him an education.



Mike Halloran
Pembroke Pines, FL, USA

 

[kontiki99]

This is an interesting thread. As a permanent employee at an airline, I'm constantly involved managing configurations on systems in a perpetual evolutionary cycle.

I see project work and reaction work. Project work generally adds value.

Some reaction work adds value if it addresses an issue permanently. Some is no value added when it addresses an issue to allow release of a single aircraft without addressing underlying issues. Sometimes you have no choice, but it kills your productivity.

In addition to coffee and courtyard time, I started tracking project vs reaction time.

Sometimes the deadlines and reaction stuff really jam my thinking up too. I just need a break to get productive again.

-A war story-

One day, with a previous employer I was working on the drawing package to upgrade a weather radar system for one of our fleets.

I got a call from line maintenance about another system. They needed authorization to back out a mod and install an older but still legal computer, because of a parts shortage.

The passengers were on the plane having drinks, the computer failed on preflight.

Could I stop what I was doing to cut an authorization with return to service procedures and get it to them.

It’s not really rocket science, and it was airworthy and legal. I gave them the document number and dictated the procedures.

They signed the release with the number. I faxed them the document so they would have a released copy to cover their butts if an inspector called them out on it. The whole thing probably took 30 minutes (including signatures).

It was an MD11, they went out with less than an hour delay. I probably didn’t get another productive thing done that day. I just couldn’t get over the mental picture of those people sitting on the plane while I was working my ass off to write that foolish document.

It was necessary to issue paper to ensure that the ship would be re-modified later. It was a regulatory requirement, but we still had time before the due date.

If the organization has evolved into a huge resource wasting machine, there is almost no point in being 100% efficient. That former employer is in bankruptcy now.

 

[jmw]

Nice comments Mike!
Of course, the real answer is that however the time breaks down, I spend to much time at work.
This is, of course, a congenital disorder in most engineers; the actual work is so interesting they don't mind the extra hours it takes to get done.

I didn't note that your spreadhseet calls for you to extend this excercise to your entire day so you could include travel time etc. nor, I suppose, do they really care to know about those extra hours at the office they don't pay you for.

If I am objective (and if I am not, my wife is), I spend altogether too much time "working". Even when driving the car I am thinking about some problem or other and how to solve it.

Fag Breaks, coffee breaks and those "socialising" moments by the coffeee machine or the notice board are also actually a vital part of the work environment. These are often the oil that helps the "machine" run smoothly. Take them out and, assuming there is no strike, see how productive the workers are (if you can illiminate the "bolshy" response from the test)

In fact, in the early days of the cotton mills and before "Working Time Directives" or parliamentary legislation about working hours, a mill owner did his own study of his workers hours. He decided unilaterally (i.e. bfore the governement actually legislated) to cut the working hours down to about 12 a day (can't remember the details, someone will remind me who it was and what the actual details were).
The result?
Productivity went up.

In any excercise like this you need to ask if the right things, all the right things and nothing but the right things are being measured and why. Then ask what do the results tell you?

Do you get to compare to your managers time sheets? Boy, that would be illuminating. You results are meaningless in isolation.

As Ashereng says, it is results that count. How do they measure that?

PS a curious management blind spot, the notice board. You can spend all day there and they can't complain: they put it up and they fill it with dumb notices and charts so hw can they then criticise you for reading them?


JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[Ashereng]

A senior director that I once had the luck to work with on a very touchy project told me, and I paraphrase:

People measure effort when they can't measure results. When someone complains of the lack of effor on your part (this was a really acrimonious project relationship), you know you've won because they don't know what you are doing, and don't know what you should be doing.

 

[ejc]

Ashereng:
Star for you. I love that quote.
We have been getting reprimanded for leaving after eight hours...or more. Perception is key here...

Of course, you can spend more time here...but are you being productive?

 

[bradpa77]

It's been a half a year since I started this little self improvement project of mine. I just wanted to share my results thus far.

My half year average work time percentage is ....

Drum roll please .....

53%

This is much lower than I had hoped it would be but like I said, the time you don't spend working can add up ... and quick.

I re-read a lot of everyone's responses in this thread while I was at it and I still stand by my reasons to increase and measure my work time efforts.

I agree that productivity is key and results are the real measure of success. The big problem here is that you really can't measure results with numbers.

However, if you could use numbers, I think the equation would work out like this:

work efficiency = results / time spent working

rearranging the formula brings ....

results = time spent working x work efficiency

So .....

If you spend more time working then you will get more results. Yes, I agree that work efficiency is equally (or even MORE) important, but it doesn't mean you should sit around doing nothing if you happen to be good an efficient worker.

To be successful and maximize your results you should concentrate on improving BOTH factors in the equation to maximize your results.

If engineer "A" can finish a task in 4 hours and engineer "B" needs 8 hours to do it, it doesn't necessarily mean that engineer "A" should sit around and scratch his butt for 4 hours.

If you were in a race and you were twice as fast as the competition, would you sit around and wait for everyone to catch up to you at each mile marker? or would you keep running and blow away the competition?

That's my 2 cents and opinion and I'm sticking to it.

 

[whyun]

I think 53% is a very honest number.

To keep in mind though, individual performance is not too critical in an average engineering office. You have super-stars and grunts in the office. In terms of salary, probably not too different.

One can take half the time to do a same task but very likely that he won't be paid double. At the end of the day, what matters is the overall performance as a team.

I can't say it is fair... but I can say it is real.

Happy Independence Day.

 

[Ashereng]

I agree.

If one person is done one part, but the other parts are not done, no net benefit. Critical path theory thingy.

However, if one person continuously finish ahead of the others, the others may take offense at being "shown up".

The train goes as fast as the slowest wheel.

Might as well get along with all the wheels.


"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater."
Albert Einstein
Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?

 

[electricpete]

I think it's a good tool that brad points out. It is not the only relevant parameter as others are quick to point out a useful tool to capture a part of the picture.

It's not too much different than recording how much money you spend on various items when you are trying to get control of your finances.

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

 

[bradpa77]

However, if one person continuously finish ahead of the others, the others may take offense at being "shown up".

The train goes as fast as the slowest wheel.

Might as well get along with all the wheels.

I am sometimes the one to be the slower wheel. It usually inspires me or pressures me to keep up. I don't get angry that I'm being shown up. I just work harder to meet the same level of productivity as my peers. I think being the most productive you can is the best way to speed the whole team up. I think instead of slowing down to meet the pace of your teamates, you should set the tone and example and hopefully inspire others to work at their maximum capicity.

That would benefit the team much better.

 

[cadnutcase]

To comment on Ashereng post,

One thing I learned in the Boy Scouts was when a group was out hiking, you always put the slowest and weakest in the front of the group. This way the stronger and faster people could be encouraging them the whole way. It was also to keep the group from being seperated.

I see this alot in my business too. Usually good leaders will call on the weaker people to answer questions to encourage them and help them learn and make them feel needed.

Critical path theory usually works the opposite of this though.