We are witnessing the emergence of numerous collaborative work tools designed to facilitate teamwork and optimize productivity.
However, these tools very rarely achieve their objective and are quickly abandoned by users. In some cases, the solution is abandoned even before being deployed to all users.
At the same time, teams are increasingly burdened with a growing number of tasks to complete within ever-shorter theoretical deadlines. Turnover, burnout, and other issues are consequences of this pressure on employees.
A paradoxical situation
How, even though we have more and more tools at our disposal to organize ourselves, can we find ourselves in this seemingly paradoxical situation?
Is it the proliferation of tools that contributes to overworking individuals?
The proliferation of tools does indeed fragment our actions and lead to a dispersion of effort, but this is not the primary reason. This is especially true since we have always faced these problems, but they are even more glaring today with the tools at our disposal.
Whatever the tools, it is the method used that allows us to work effectively, coordinate tasks, and meet deadlines.
So, what is this method? Is there one method or several?
One might think there are several methods, but in reality, there is only one.
Indeed, the only way to create realistic schedules and allow your team to work effectively is to assess the workload and plan it while taking into account the team’s other constraints.
Two examples
The two most frequent examples:
Example 1:
Team meeting on Monday morning:
Christine, Manager: “Jean, how long will it take you to complete this work?”
Jean: “It will take me 10 days.”
Christine: “It’ll be done by next Friday, right?”
Jean: “Yes.”
Christine: “Okay, noted.”
Two weeks later, team meeting on Monday morning:
Christine: “So Jean, have you finished?”
Jean: “No, I haven’t had time to finish.”
Christine: “Oh, that’s a shame, we were counting on it to get Eric started on the next project.”
Jean: “I know, but I’ve been busy with other things. I had to work on a problem with Frédéric, I also worked on the other project with Simon, I had a long-planned day off last week, etc.”
Christine: “When do you think you’ll finish then?”
Jean: “I’m not really sure, I hope by the end of the week.”
Jean senses Christine’s disappointment; he feels uneasy around the team because the work will have to be postponed, and he no longer dares to commit.
Deadlines are not being met, and Christine has no visibility on when the work will be completed and therefore cannot accurately plan the next steps.
Example 2:
Pierre, the manager, planned all his team’s tasks to give them visibility. He created a schedule by assigning one or more members to each task, paying attention to the sequence of tasks, and he set milestones to mark the major steps.
Pierre presents the results of his work on Monday morning to kick off the week.
Everyone leaves with their roadmap and agrees to meet again the following Monday to review the work to be done and launch the next tasks (the next sprint). Pierre feels secure and confident that the work will be completed successfully.
Unfortunately, no team member was able to meet the schedule or complete their tasks despite significant effort and extensive planning.
Pierre is baffled and frustrated, questioning his team’s commitment since no one challenged the planning during the presentation meeting.
The team members are disappointed that they haven’t met Pierre’s expectations, even though he tries to make things easier for them with his schedule and roadmaps.
No one truly understands why the tasks weren’t completed on time, and this scenario repeats itself relentlessly, creating tension and burnout among the teams, who are either struggling to do their best or, conversely, leading to disengagement that is equally damaging.
The source of the problem: lack of workload planning
How can we find ourselves in these situations, and what do these two scenarios have in common?
In both cases, the source of the problem is the same: the workload is not planned while taking existing constraints into account.
In example 1, Jean estimates the workload at 10 days, but he equates duration with workload. He also states that he can finish the work in 2 weeks (5 working days per week).
However, Jean does not factor in the other tasks or constraints he may have during this period (internal matters, another ongoing project, his long-scheduled day off, etc.). These other tasks and constraints represent a workload of 5 days over the period, and they cannot be postponed.
Realistic planning involves distributing the 10 days of workload and the 5 days of constraints over this same period. We are therefore looking at a total workload of 15 days, and consequently, the realistic timeframe for completing the work is 15 days, or 3 weeks.
In the second example, the workload of the tasks is not assessed. In this case, Pierre can easily schedule 8 tasks for a team member during the week, even though the workload for each task is only one day.
It is therefore impossible for the team member in question to meet their schedule, even before the week has begun.
Realistic Planning
Realistic planning involves assessing the workload of each task and scheduling accordingly. Pierre will quickly realize that it is impossible to complete his schedule in 5 days. He can then move 3 tasks to the following week. Another benefit of this exercise is prioritizing tasks to determine which tasks will be kept in the first week and which will be moved to the second.
The key, the only way to create realistic schedules and work effectively, is to assess and distribute the workload while taking constraints into account. It’s even recommended to plan the workload associated with meetings, unforeseen events (there are always some…), etc.
The goal is to ensure that each team member’s utilization rate is close to 100% for the day, week, or month, depending on the planning and monitoring methods and the team’s level of autonomy.
It’s also essential to consider employees’ vacation time and working hours. These can vary from one employee to another (4/5 time, 35 hours, 36 hours, 38.5 hours, etc.).
The workload assigned to someone working 28 hours cannot be the same as that assigned to someone working 35 hours per week.
The occupancy rate calculation must take these elements into account to alert you and help you create a realistic schedule.
Crucial work
This work is crucial and invaluable. It’s rewarding for a project manager to provide visibility, enable their teams to work effectively, and meet deadlines.
However, the distinction between the duration of a task and the workload allocated to it isn’t intuitive and requires learning to develop basic reflexes.
Once understood, it’s a very powerful tool: I might have a 30-day workload, but if I assign three people full-time to the project, I can finish the work in 10 days.
We can then go further and optimize team members’ contributions based on their skills, the sequence of tasks, absences, task progress, and so on.
It’s a true performance and productivity tool.