Work Output: Quadrant analysis
Objective. Position teams on the quadrant for a chosen period and read a quadrant as a conversation lens whose axes and thresholds are configurable - not as a fixed verdict.
Quadrant analysis answers 'where does each team sit when I plot two dimensions at once - for example volume against quality, or utilisation against attainment?' It is a fast way to spot the busy-but-not-delivering team and to structure a coaching conversation.
See it in the demo
What this screen answers
Sales uses the quadrant to make the busy-versus-delivering gap visual in seconds: a team high on activity but low on attainment lands in a tell-tale corner. CSMs use it to triage where attention goes. The customer question is 'which teams need a different conversation - more capacity, coaching, or a quality fix - and which are genuinely strong?'
The task
Choose the period and the two dimensions that frame the question you are asking, and scope to comparable teams. Read where teams cluster and which sit in the corner that matters for your story. Use the position to decide the next screen - a low-attainment, high-activity team goes to root cause or quality; a low-volume, high-quality team may be a complexity story. Treat the plot as a starting point for a drill, not a conclusion.
How to read it
A quadrant position is a lens, not a label. The axes you chose and the thresholds that split the quadrants are configurable, so the same team can move corners if the cut changes - read the position as 'worth a conversation', never as a verdict. The classic misread is treating a corner as a rating of the people; a team in the 'low' quadrant is often there because of work mix, complexity or an uncounted-work gap, not because they are weak. Confirm what each axis is actually measuring before you narrate it.
Honest limits
The quadrant does not prove why a team sits where it does, and its thresholds are assumptions until the customer agrees them. It will not substitute for the normalisation the people and teams screen requires. Confirm axis definitions, threshold logic and that the compared teams are genuinely comparable with product before using a quadrant placement in a customer review.
Interpretation check
A quadrant position is a configurable lens for deciding where to look next, not a verdict on a team; axes and thresholds can move the picture, and a 'low' corner is often mix or coverage, not weakness.
In the field
The utilisation-versus-attainment quadrant is the single clearest visual for the KnackGlobal 'busy is not delivering' argument - used as a lead into cost per clean claim, never as the proof itself.
Practical task
Set two dimensions and a period, identify one team in the corner that matters for your story, and write a one-line finding naming the drill screen you would open and why the position is a lead not a verdict.
Self-check
A team sits in the bottom-left quadrant. Is it your worst team?
Not necessarily. The corner depends on the axes and thresholds chosen, and a low position often reflects work mix, complexity or uncounted work. It flags a conversation to have, not a rating to assign.
What makes the quadrant useful in a demo?
It makes the busy-but-not-delivering gap visible instantly - a team high on activity and low on attainment in one glance - as a way to structure the drill, not to conclude.
What must you confirm before narrating a placement?
What each axis actually measures, that the thresholds are agreed, and that the plotted teams are comparable - otherwise the placement is an artefact of the cut.
Verified vs demo. Screen is live in the demo at https://work-output.demo.timechamp.io/#/quadrants; exact controls, labels and on-screen figures are SME-validation-pending.