Work Output: Processes
Objective. View output by process for a chosen period and read each process against its own standard - never compare raw counts across processes that mean different things.
Processes answers 'which types of work are keeping to standard, and which are slipping?' It groups completed work by process so you compare like with like within a process over time, instead of mixing unlike work into one number.
See it in the demo
What this screen answers
A Sales or CSM person opens Processes to see output organised by the kind of work, so a shortfall can be tied to a specific process rather than a vague team average. The customer question is 'is each process delivering the expected work to its own standard?' This is where mix stops hiding problems - a strong process can mask a weak one in a blended total.
The task
Set the period and read each process against its own attainment and standard, looking at the trend within a process rather than across processes. Identify the one process that is slipping and carry it to backlog and SLA, root cause or quality to understand it. For a CSM validating an account, this is where you confirm that each process has an agreed completion definition and a credible standard, because they differ by process.
How to read it
Each process has its own complexity and standard, so a count in one process is not comparable to a count in another - comparing process A's volume to process B's and concluding one is 'more productive' is the classic misread here. Read within a process over time, and read against that process's standard, not a shared one. A blended average across processes is almost always misleading because it buries the mix that matters.
Honest limits
This screen does not prove the standard behind each process is agreed or that every process the customer runs is represented - some work may be off-system or uncategorised. It shows the model on seeded data. Confirm per-process completion definitions, standards and source coverage with product and the customer before using a process attainment figure in a business review.
Interpretation check
Read each process against its own standard and trend; counts across different processes are not comparable, and a blended cross-process average hides the mix that actually matters.
Practical task
Pick a period, find the one process slipping against its own standard, and write a one-line finding plus which screen (backlog, root cause or quality) you would open to understand it.
Self-check
Process A completed 400 units, Process B completed 120. Is A the stronger process?
The comparison is meaningless - different processes have different complexity and standards. Read each against its own standard and trend, not against each other.
Why can a blended team average mislead on this screen?
A strong process can mask a slipping one. Grouping by process is what surfaces the specific shortfall the average buries.
What does a CSM validate per process here?
The completion definition and the credibility of the standard - both differ by process, and a loose definition makes that process's attainment unreliable.
Verified vs demo. Screen is live in the demo at https://work-output.demo.timechamp.io/#/processes; exact controls, labels and on-screen figures are SME-validation-pending.