Top 5 Mistakes Teams Make When Using Time in Status Metrics

[#1]

Time in Status metrics are powerful tools for understanding and improving team workflows, but they are only as effective as the way they are used. When used correctly, these metrics can identify bottlenecks, inefficiencies, and opportunities for improvement. However, common mistakes can turn this data into a source of confusion or even damage team dynamics. 

"I want to measure something, but I need to know what. I've measured it. What should I do with these numbers?" Many more thoughts like this come to mind when you first become familiar with this metric.

Below are five of the most common mistakes teams make when using Time in Status metrics and effective strategies to help avoid them.

To illustrate the reports and demonstrate examples of metric calculation, we use the Time in Status app developed by my SaaSJet team.

Focusing Exclusively on Individual Performance

Mistake

Teams often use Time in Status metrics to measure individual productivity by carefully analyzing how much time a particular person spends on their tasks.

Assignee Time report

Why It’s a Problem

This approach can create a culture of blame and micromanagement where team members feel pressured rather than supported. This shifts the focus from cooperation to competition, undermining trust and teamwork.

Solution

Instead of targeting individuals, use Time in Status metrics to analyze team workflows. Identify inefficient processes and areas where collaboration can be improved. Metrics should promote teamwork by highlighting opportunities for process optimization rather than singling out team members.

Additionally, consider using Average Time in Status report to focus on team-level trends rather than individual performance. These reports help pinpoint where bottlenecks occur, such as specific statuses that consistently show delays. Pair averages with contextual analysis to understand why these delays happen. This approach shifts attention from individual accountability to process improvement, fostering a more collaborative and supportive environment.

Average Time in Status report

Also, in the Assignee time report, you can group users into teams and see the calculation of time spent by specific subgroups, which can also give you some valuable insights.

Assignee Time report with configurated user group

Neglecting Non-Working Hours

Mistake

Some teams fail to configure their metrics to exclude weekends, holidays, or non-working hours, leading to inflated time calculations.

Why It’s a Problem

Ignoring non-working hours skews the data, making it seem like tasks or tickets take longer to complete than they actually do. This can create false alarms about delays or SLA violations.

Solution

Ensure that your app for tracking Time in Status is configured to exclude non-working hours. Define your team's work schedules in the tool to reflect realistic time frames, allowing you to get accurate metrics and make better decisions.

In the Time in Status app, you can customize the work schedules you need and perform more accurate metrics calculations according to your needs.

The process of setting up work calendars

Lack of Contextual Analysis

Mistake

Focusing only on numbers without delving into the reasons for delays or transitions between statuses.

Why It’s a Problem

Metrics alone cannot explain why a task is stuck in a certain status. Teams risk implementing ineffective solutions or missing critical issues without understanding the context.

Solution

Combine quantitative metrics with qualitative analysis. For example, you can conduct team discussions or retrospectives to identify the root causes of bottlenecks. Use metrics as a starting point for deeper conversations about process improvement.

For example, sprints - most teams work by using them and conducting a retrospective at the end. The Sprint Report from the app mentioned above is well suited for such a process, as it assesses the complex team's work and considers various factors.

Sprint Report

Over-Reliance on Average Times

Mistake

Relying exclusively on average Time in Status metrics to evaluate performance. Reports are helpful, but focusing only on the average is not productive.

Why It’s a Problem

Averages can be misleading because they are sensitive to outliers. For instance, one extremely delayed task can distort the overall metric, masking the typical performance of the team.

Solution

Supplement the average time with other statistics, such as median, percentile, and variance breakdowns. This additional data gives you a clearer picture of team performance and helps you identify specific areas that need attention.

Failing to Update Workflows

Mistake

Outdated or poorly designed workflows no longer reflect the team’s current processes.

Why It’s a Problem

Time in Status metrics depends on the accuracy of the underlying workflow. If workflows are outdated, the metrics derived from them are irrelevant or misleading, leading to poor decision-making.

Solution

Regularly review and update your workflows to align with your team’s evolving processes. Involve team members in the review process to ensure workflows are realistic and comprehensive. This ensures your metrics remain relevant and actionable.

Time in Status reports are perfect for auditing your workflow. With a regular report, you can identify the duration of tasks in each workflow status, and with the Status Count report, for example, you can check how often your statuses are used.

Time in Status report

Status Count report

Takeaway

Time in Status metrics are invaluable for understanding team workflows, but they must be used thoughtfully to avoid common pitfalls. By focusing on process improvements rather than individual performance, accounting for non-working hours, analyzing context, diversifying statistical measures, and keeping workflows up-to-date, teams can unlock the full potential of these metrics.

With these best practices in mind, Time in Status metrics can become a cornerstone of continuous improvement, helping teams work smarter, not harder.

[Bill Sheboy]

Hi @Iryna Komarnitska_SaaSJet_ 

Thank you for your article and drawing attention to better use of measures for teams, perhaps helping reinforce this idea from Goldratt: "Tell me how you will measure me and I will tell you how I will behave."

Regarding the ideas on neglecting non-working hours, in my experience that depends upon what is being measured and why.  For example, Lead Time is typically based on calendar time (i.e., all days / hours) as that is what the end-customer cares about: when they placed the order until when it was delivered.  This might be mitigated with communication about how forecasts for orders are created for the customer.  Contrast that with a Build Cycle Time measure being based on only working hours, helping a team analyze flow for improvement opportunities.  Picking only one setting for non-working hours on / off would impact measures.

Regarding over-reliance on average measures, I completely agree with your ideas.  When only presented with tabular data, I find people may quickly focus on arithmetic mean (i.e., average) because that is all they have ever been shown or learned about.  Education and presentation of control and distribution charts will help them better understand how the number of data points and their distribution pattern impact what could be interpreted and discerned from the information.

Thanks again for the series of articles from your team and vendor.

Kind regards,
Bill