Work Output: People and teams
Objective. Scope the people and teams view to a comparable group and period, and read output per person or team only after complexity, tenure and quality are aligned.
This screen answers 'who and which teams are producing the expected work?' It is powerful and dangerous in equal measure: it is where the raw-count ranking misread does the most damage, so it is where interpretation discipline matters most.
See it in the demo
What this screen answers
Sales uses people and teams to show output attributed to a group and to set up the utilisation-versus-attainment contrast. CSMs use it to find where an output change sits and to build a manager review routine. The customer question is 'where is output strong or short, and for whom?' - framed as a lead to investigate, never a league table to act on blindly.
The task
Pick a comparable set - same work type and period - and a scope the viewer is entitled to see. Read output alongside its context columns (complexity, standard, quality) rather than sorting on volume alone. For a CSM, use it to locate a shift worth a manager conversation, then drill to transactions or root cause. For Sales, place a utilisation figure from Time and Activity beside attainment here to show that busy and delivering are different things.
How to read it
Output per person or team is meaningful only after work type, complexity, tenure and quality are aligned. The classic misread - and the most harmful one in this whole app - is ranking people by raw completed-work count and treating the bottom as underperformers. Tenure, case mix and quality all move the number for reasons that are not effort. 'Clean output per paid hour' is the fair basis; raw output per head is not. This screen informs a conversation, not a performance rating.
Honest limits
This is not a performance-management verdict and must not be sold as one - it shows counted output in context, not individual capability. It does not prove why a person's output differs; mix, backlog, source gaps and complexity must be ruled out first. Access scope also shapes what a viewer sees. Confirm with product how individuals are attributed and remind the customer that fair use requires the normalisation above plus the quality filter.
Interpretation check
Output per person or team is only comparable after work type, complexity, tenure and quality are aligned; never rank people by raw count or treat this screen as a performance rating.
In the field
KnackGlobal's output-per-FTE case lives on this screen - but only if complexity and quality are aligned first; a raw per-head ranking would hand the incumbent an easy rebuttal.
Practical task
Choose one comparable team and period, read output with its complexity and quality context, and write a one-line finding that identifies a drill-worthy shift without ranking individuals by raw count.
Self-check
A manager wants to put the lowest three by volume on a performance plan. Your response?
Stop - raw volume is not performance. Normalise for work type, complexity and tenure, apply the quality filter, and treat the result as a lead to investigate causes, not a verdict. This screen informs a conversation, not a rating.
How do you use this screen to prove 'busy is not delivering'?
Put a utilisation figure from Time and Activity next to output attainment here and find someone or a team highly utilised but below attainment - the gap activity tools cannot show.
A senior agent shows lower output than a junior. What might explain it?
Case mix and complexity - seniors often carry the hard work. Complexity weighting and quality context, not raw count, decide whether that is a concern.
Verified vs demo. Screen is live in the demo at https://work-output.demo.timechamp.io/#/people; exact controls, labels and on-screen figures are SME-validation-pending.