by Craig Roth | April 26, 2013 | Comments Off on Has “Productivity” Become a Bad Word?
Industry analysts, like the rest of IT, speak in code. It’s come to my attention that the word “productivity” may have acquired some baggage as it was picked up by vendors making general purpose software like word processors that couldn’t find a better way to name this category. So it was used predominantly to refer to vague, back-of-the-napkin calculations of savings that never find their way to the bottom line. For example: “if we save five minutes a day for every sales people, and there are x salespeople who make $y per hour, we’re saving $z”.
That’s too bad since a broad understanding of productivity is needed for IT to address the full spectrum of it. Remember how “knowledge management” was forced to spend 15+ years wandering in the desert after overzealous promises were broken in the 1980’s? KM is just now making a return. It took literally a generation to pass before finding a new audience that didn’t have a bad impression of the term.
Is “productivity” also damaged goods?
Productivity is output per unit of input. The digital world offers less tangible versions of what outputs and inputs can be. Output could be “better online customer experience” or “hopefully resulting in higher future purchases”. Inputs could be “expertise and time spent on improving the web user interface”. But the formula is unchanged.
In common usage, being more productive means doing more of the thing the measurer cares about. Therefore, productivity is in the eye of the beholder. Getting employees to care about the things that matter most to the business is the job of management. Once IT knows what that is, they can determine what a “productivity tool” looks like.
Software vendors are making broad assumptions when they declare that a tool helps productivity without knowing what it is you’re trying to do. For example, helping you quickly add fun animations to your slide presentations may count as productivity if that’s what you need to do and were spending a longer time doing before. It counts as zero additional productivity if that’s not involved in the goal being measured as “output”, and is just decreasing your “input” (time) as you mess around with it. I can just picture some of my old bosses saying “unless you’re a clown, fun is not an output.”
Own your definition of productivity. It should be based on what matters to the people you work for and what the “output” is. Once you know that, productivity can be pulled in from the proverbial desert and regain a comfortable place in the office.
Comments or opinions expressed on this blog are those of the individual contributors only, and do not necessarily represent the views of Gartner, Inc. or its management. Readers may copy and redistribute blog postings on other blogs, or otherwise for private, non-commercial or journalistic purposes, with attribution to Gartner. This content may not be used for any other purposes in any other formats or media. The content on this blog is provided on an "as-is" basis. Gartner shall not be liable for any damages whatsoever arising out of the content or use of this blog.