Evan;

Excellent points!

Tom


>Hi Joel,
>
>Congrats on the promotion, and good luck in your new position!
>
>The low end of the scale: when I was contracting for a particular (unnamed) government agency in DC, that agency only expected 60 percent of your time to be spent actually performing your assigned tasks. The other 40 percent was given to status meetings and user support sessions (I'm not joking here -- this was communicated to me directly by the project manager).
>
>Having said THAT (g), I guess my approach would be very different than others here. Why? Because, in my view, productivity is like beauty -- it's in the eye of the beholder.
>
>Productivity can be a four-hour brainstorming session where several developers shut themselves in a room and discuss a particular design, with no REAL output other than shared knowledge and a mutual acknowledgement that everyone's now "on the same page". Productivity could be searching the Wiki or the message archives here on the UT for a two-minute Sergey Berezniker link that saves you two hours of noodling around in the Help file (bg). Productivity can ALSO be talking for half an hour in the break room over coffee to the department manager of the group for which you're writing something (and, in the process, learning that the specifications you were given last week don't have the slightest resemblance to what they REALLY NEED).
>
>Most "productivity focused" managers with which I've personally been involved would have kittens over each of these expenditures of time. However, each would also be invaluable -- DEPENDING ON YOUR PERSPECTIVE.
>
>It's always incumbent on a manager to properly communicate the company's policies. It's also, IMHO, part of the deal to know what's REALLY the target. If I only make 84% billable hours for three weeks running, and the goal is 90%, but I've correctly and efficiently completed everything asked of me and the client is happy -- does that mean I'm less productive than the person who scored 95% billable hours, but is behind schedule and didn't finish anything? And, if the answer is "yes" to that question, is it my responsibility -- or should my manager recognize that I need something more (or more challenging) on my plate?
>
>BTW, I've been involved in situations exactly like the one I just described. Everything is getting done, we're on or ahead of schedule, co-workers are on track, and the end user is pleased -- but one or more of us gets called on the carpet and dragged over the coals because our "productive billable time" doesn't match the "standards" that somebody pulled out of the air. FWIW, I usually don't last long at places like these (g).
>
>Just some thoughts, most of which you've probably already had (g).
>
>
>>In a typical 40-hour work week, what is the minimum number of "productive" hours you would consider acceptable from an employee? My definition of "productive" would be any time doing work for the company: working on assigned tasks, helping others, answering phones, whatever. I would also include a reasonable amount of time spent improving skills, such as reading books, magazines, and forums such as UT. "Non-productive" time is essentially time not doing work: taking breaks, surfing the net, shooting the bull with other employees, etc.
>>
>>I was recently promoted, and I need to communicate company expectations to employees. I want to be sure that my expectations are reasonable and not out of line. I know this is subjective, but I would appreciate your opinion. Please be honest. It would be very easy to take the hard line and demand 100% productivity, but I don't think that is realistic. A certain amount of non-productive time is to be expected and is healthy, IMO. The question is how much? Thoughts would be appreciated.