Rules of Productivity

http://blog.approache.com/2010/11/rules-of-productivity.html

How do we get more work done? It is a question that every manager and every passionate worker faces. Yet, for the most part, teams operate on gut instinct and habit. The results are less than optimal. [source]

What is productivity?

+ Work accomplished
- Work required to fix defects
- Work required to fix bad design decisions

Productivity can be negative when there is more harm than good.

Experiment 1: Overtime

Working more than 40 hours a week leads to decreased productivity.

< 40 hours/week – working not “enough”.
> 60 hours/week – small productivity boost.

The boost only lasts for 3 to 4 weeks and then turns negative. Though can be used for a short-time productivity increase.

So, work 40 hours a week with time for rest and family. Never work 2 months of 60 hrs/week. Overall productivity will be lower, despite the initial boost.

Experiment 2: Work harder in bursts.

Take advantage of the burst during overtime.
Crunch for a week and work only 40 hrs on another week.
Any more efficient work patterns?

Anything over 40 hrs/week results in a recovery period, no matter how you split it up. 40 hrs/week can be 10 hrs/day for 4 days and one day off. This pattern of work can increase productivity by 10-70%.

So:

Raise productivity immediately with short spurts < 3 weeks.
Overtime temporarily to meet deadlines.
Plan for the reduction in productivity immediately afterwards.
Consider 4-day work week as a flexitime option.

Experiment 3: Performance for knowledge workers declines after 35 hrs, not 40.

Creativity and problem solving decreases faster with fatigue than manual labour.
Grinding out problems by working longer on average result in inferior solutions.
Lack of sleep is particularly damaging.

So:

Overtime kills creativity.
If you are stuck on a problem, go home or take a break.
Get 8 hrs of sleep to improve your problem solving abilities.

Experiment 4: Teams on overtime feel like they are doing more, but actually accomplish less.

Team with overtime feels like they are doing much more than the team without overtime.
Team without overtime produces the better product and accomplishes more.

Humans ignore the systematic costs and physiological biases:

Failure to measure (cost of defects, bad design decisions, missed opportunities).
Linear extrapolation (initial productivity boost is seen as same in the future).
Habit (a bad one!).
Self reported excellence (behaviour rewarded independent of the results).

So:

The feeling of increased long-term productivity is FALSE.
Use customer metrics to determine the productivity.

Experiment 5: Productivity is maximised in small teams of 4-8 people.

Productivity of a small group is 30-50% higher than groups over 10 people.
Too high cost of communication for groups with > 10 people.
Smaller teams don’t have enough breadth to solve a wide array of problems.

So:

Split your teams into cross-functional teams.
Link small teams using '”scrum-of-scrums”.
Create processes for:
- growing new teams;
- splitting large teams;
- transitioning to new projects;

Experiment 6: Seat people on the same team together in a closed team room.

100% increase in productivity.
Faster communication and problem-solving.
Fewer external interruptions to the team increase overall productivity.

So:

Seat the team in their own room. With walls.
Give at least 5 sqr/meters per person.
Create side rooms for private conversations, phone calls, meetings.
Minimise non-team distractions.

Experiment 6: Cross-functional teams outperform siloed teams

Produced more effective solutions in the same time.
Much more likely to generate breakthrough solutions.
Short-term loss of negotiation of norms.

This is why:

Fewer external dependencies mean fewer lengthy blockages.
Team has the breadth to see the forest, not just the trees.
Different perspectives mean lower chance of groupthink.

So:

Create the team where every skill needed to solve the problem at hand is in the same room.
Limit the charter: “Do everything = big team”.
Fulltime: focused team member efforts. Multitasking = 15% drop in productivity.

Experiment 8: Scheduling at 80% of team capacity produces better products.

Scheduling at 100% doesn’t give space to creativity.
No lost time: passionate workers keep thinking.
The 20% goes into new idea generation and process improvements.
Producing 20 great features is usually far more profitable than 100 competent features.

Why?

Allows employees to explore many options cheaply.
Gives time to prototype breakthrough solutions that sound crazy on paper.
Allows people to pursue passions.

So:

Schedule 20% below possible velocity.
Hold periodic reviews of side projects and award interesting ideas.
Publicise and reward side projects that make their way into production.
Keep a public list of important things if anyone runs out of work (happens rarely).