4 ms·

Is every bum-on-seat-hour ACTUALLY valuable? Maybe in a sweatshop....

by intoverflow2 10y ago

overcast 10y ago
They are valuable when you're paying them.
- BjoernKW 10y ago
  Unfortunately, this misconception or perhaps misguided idea of the value you get when paying for work is still surprisingly common today. Yes, for lack of a more accurate measure work is generally measured in "hours spent". However, as an employer or as a client, what you actually want is not someone's wasted hours but the business value created during those hours. Insisting on someone filling an office chair just because you paid him to do so seems petty. It's almost this liege lord kind of thinking comically displayed in Dilbert where the people you pay to play "butts in seats" are your part-time serfs to do with as you please.
  - overcast 10y ago
    We're talking about wasting time(money) in meetings.
Arnt 10y ago
No. But >0 of the 8 people involved in the example would've spent a productive hour if the meeting hadn't intervened.
- Cthulhu_ 10y ago
  Depends on whether they had anything to do or whether the goal of that meeting was to determine what goals should be achieved the next period.
- onion2k 10y ago
  To misquote John Wanamaker, “Half the people in a meeting shouldn't be there; the trouble is we don't know which half.”
- PeterisP 10y ago
  On the other hand, a relevant person being out of the meeting and out of the loop can easily mean that the other 7 people spend the following week on something that shouldn't have been done in the first place. It's easy to spend a hundred productive engineer-hours that eventually add up to a negative added value.
  - Arnt 10y ago
    True indeed, and arguably that's how I spent Wednesday and Thursday this week, but you're a little close to saying "although meetings tend to waste time, that's excusable because other things aren't perfect either".
    - PeterisP 10y ago
      I'm saying that deficiencies in information exchange are even more likely to waste (a lot!) of time than meetings. It's desirable to reduce time wastage at meetings, but it's not ok to do so by simply randomly not appearing to them - if you want many people to skip these meetings, then you have to have a solid alternative on how you'll get the info exchange.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

Is every bum-on-seat-hour ACTUALLY valuable? Maybe in a sweatshop....

overcast 10y ago

They are valuable when you're paying them.

BjoernKW 10y ago
Unfortunately, this misconception or perhaps misguided idea of the value you get when paying for work is still surprisingly common today. Yes, for lack of a more accurate measure work is generally measured in "hours spent". However, as an employer or as a client, what you actually want is not someone's wasted hours but the business value created during those hours. Insisting on someone filling an office chair just because you paid him to do so seems petty. It's almost this liege lord kind of thinking comically displayed in Dilbert where the people you pay to play "butts in seats" are your part-time serfs to do with as you please.
- overcast 10y ago
  We're talking about wasting time(money) in meetings.

Arnt 10y ago

No. But >0 of the 8 people involved in the example would've spent a productive hour if the meeting hadn't intervened.

Cthulhu_ 10y ago
Depends on whether they had anything to do or whether the goal of that meeting was to determine what goals should be achieved the next period.
onion2k 10y ago
To misquote John Wanamaker, “Half the people in a meeting shouldn't be there; the trouble is we don't know which half.”
PeterisP 10y ago
On the other hand, a relevant person being out of the meeting and out of the loop can easily mean that the other 7 people spend the following week on something that shouldn't have been done in the first place. It's easy to spend a hundred productive engineer-hours that eventually add up to a negative added value.
- Arnt 10y ago
  True indeed, and arguably that's how I spent Wednesday and Thursday this week, but you're a little close to saying "although meetings tend to waste time, that's excusable because other things aren't perfect either".
  - PeterisP 10y ago
    I'm saying that deficiencies in information exchange are even more likely to waste (a lot!) of time than meetings. It's desirable to reduce time wastage at meetings, but it's not ok to do so by simply randomly not appearing to them - if you want many people to skip these meetings, then you have to have a solid alternative on how you'll get the info exchange.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]