Everyone's different. I only intervene if they aren't getting results and a lot of the time when they are having issues it's never because of the surface things you'd notice if you were managing time.
Everyone's different. I only intervene if they aren't getting results and a lot of the time when they are having issues it's never because of the surface things you'd notice if you were managing time.
Managing output alone is hard, how do you do it without setting unrealistic goals? Do you have a place where I can read more about this?
Usually everyone in the team knows what's required, and we have the tools, and the reports to measure things but usually things might take less or more than expected and the question here is really the actual software challenges that delayed the work or the actual time and effort spent on a problem?
Also, if you evaluate people on speed only, ignoring quality of their work, people will eventually figure it out and the quality will of course suffer. To prevent this from happening, you'll need to pay attention to quality too, which in practice is probably even harder than tracking speed.
To summarize, IMO software development (like many other white collar jobs) is a ripe for exploitation by slackers. This cannot be entirely prevented, and can only be combated by being in the trenches with the team and careful observation of each team member's performance over the long run.
And Google's work with OKRs is a good practical model to follow. Also, humans being human, I find that my programmers like using practices that Google follows/pioneered. If you start using OKRs milk that "we're gonna do what Google does" mantra as a way to get buy in. https://library.gv.com/how-google-sets-goals-okrs-a1f69b0b72...