Comparing crews fairly: productivity numbers that account for the floor they were given
The envelope superintendent sees crew B completing two-thirds as much area per hour as crew A. Its lead hand is about to be moved. Crew B has the balcony-heavy elevation and different access, but the weekly table names only the crews and their raw rates.
Begin with each crew's own comparable trend, then compare crews only where the task and conditions support it. Retain raw figures and explain any adjustment rather than manufacturing a fair-looking score. Some observations cannot support a reliable adjusted comparison. In that case, state the limitation and collect better evidence. A league table without work boundaries can punish the crew assigned the difficult area and discourage useful reporting.
Make the comparison defensible to both foremen
- Match the task and completion rule. Identify scope, unit, accepted output and hours included. Confirm whether preparation, details, rework or support are counted consistently. Equal square metres do not automatically mean equal work when the included interfaces differ.
- Read each crew's history first. Compare its own periods with similar work and conditions. Discuss changes with the foreman before assigning a cause. A stable crew facing harder work may explain a changing rate more usefully than its position in a ranking.
- Describe the conditions side by side. Record geometry, repetition, access, workface readiness, equipment, experience and interruptions relevant to the measured task. Use dated evidence and the rate library where useful. Keep missing conditions visible rather than creating a blanket hard-floor allowance.
- Prefer matched subsets. Find sufficiently comparable areas or periods and retain their quantities and hours. If an adjustment is needed, document its source, calculation and limits. Do not remove genuine crew effort as an adjustment simply because its inclusion produces an inconvenient result.
- Check the explanation with both leads. Show the unchanged raw record and the comparison basis. Invite corrections to scope and conditions. Distinguish an observed difference, a proposed explanation and the management decision; numerical closeness alone does not establish identical performance or prove a cause.
- Use the result to improve work. Identify supported readiness, training or allocation changes through the responsible process. Revisit them on later evidence. Keep individual feedback private and specific rather than publishing an unqualified ranking that encourages quantity inflation or omission of difficult work.
Common mistakes
- Ranking whole-area rates with different task content.
- Inventing an adjustment to achieve a preferred result.
- Discarding the raw record after selecting a subset.
- Assuming a small sample settles every staffing question.
Checklist
Before using a crew comparison
- Matched task, unit and hours boundary.
- Each crew's own comparable history.
- Documented condition differences.
- Supported subset or adjustment with limits.
- Raw records retained and foremen heard.
- Specific decision and later review.
Check your understanding
There is no credible way to quantify the access difference between two areas. Should you invent a percentage to make the comparison fair?
