Work Output: Targets and standards
Objective. Set or review targets and expected standards and treat them as assumptions that must be agreed and credible - attainment against an arbitrary standard tells you nothing.
Targets and standards answers 'what should the output be, and is that expectation sound?' It is the backbone of attainment: every attainment figure elsewhere is only as meaningful as the standard it is measured against, so this is where the meaning is set or lost.
See it in the demo
What this screen answers
CSMs use this screen to set the expected standard per process and complexity so attainment becomes meaningful; Sales uses it to show attainment is grounded, not invented. The customer question is 'what is the right expectation for this work, and do we agree it?' A standard that nobody agreed is a number that makes attainment look precise while meaning nothing.
The task
Review the standard for each process and complexity band and check it is grounded - in history, capacity or agreement - rather than a default. Where you set one, tie it to the work's complexity so a hard unit is not held to a simple unit's standard. For a CSM, the central task is to get the customer to own and agree each standard before attainment is reported, because attainment is the headline figure a review will turn on.
How to read it
A target or standard is an assumption until it is agreed and credible - the classic misread is reading high or low attainment as performance when the standard itself is arbitrary. Attainment against a too-soft standard flatters; against a too-hard one it unfairly condemns. The standard must also match complexity, or a team doing hard work looks like it is underdelivering. Read attainment and the standard together, and never present attainment without being able to defend the standard behind it.
Honest limits
This screen does not prove a standard is correct or that the customer has agreed it - the demo seeds plausible values. Confirm with product how standards are derived and governed, and treat attainment as meaningful only once the customer has agreed the standard and it reflects complexity. A demo standard is never a commitment to what the customer can achieve.
Interpretation check
A target or standard is an assumption until agreed and credible and matched to complexity; attainment measured against an arbitrary standard tells you nothing, so never present attainment without being able to defend the standard behind it.
Practical task
Review one process's standard, judge whether it is grounded and complexity-matched, and write a one-line finding stating whether its attainment figure is safe to report and what the customer would need to agree first.
Self-check
A team shows 120% attainment. Are they outperforming?
Only if the standard is credible and agreed. 120% against a too-soft standard means the standard is wrong, not that the team is exceptional. Attainment and the standard must be read together.
Why must standards match complexity?
Holding hard work to a simple-work standard makes a strong team look like it is underdelivering. The standard has to reflect the complexity of the work it measures.
What is the CSM's core job on this screen before any review?
Get the customer to own and agree each standard - attainment is the headline a review turns on, and an unagreed standard makes every attainment figure indefensible.
Verified vs demo. Screen is live in the demo at https://work-output.demo.timechamp.io/#/targets; exact controls, labels and on-screen figures are SME-validation-pending.