How Many 'Productive' Hours in a Working Week?

[Octoposse]

If I work 37 hours, how many is it reasonable to expect to be filled with actual, scheduled, work . . . as opposed to answering the phone, changing printer cartridges, making tea, etc . . .

The bigger picture is that there are two of us, analysts in a bit of the public sector, covering a town of about a quarter of a million people.

We've been a "bit busy" since COVID-19 (I've worked 15 weekends on the trot, and have told the powers that be that I can't do the next one for personal reasons). I work 37 hours, my colleague 22, and we both have childcare responsibilities.

It was sort of sustainable during full "lockdown" best efforts/crisis mode, but now business-as-usual demands are coming back without the emergency stuff entirely disappearing.

We're pushing back (which neither of us like to, having (my theory anyway!) gravitated to analysis/intelligence careers partly because they're normally pretty non confrontational, and we're non-confontational kind of people . . . ).

But getting pressure on two fronts: our time estimates for jobs (the "why will that simple job take 15 hours?" type st (spoiler: because if you want a sensible, evidenced, robust answer then it's not "simple")) . . . . and then the filling of the 59 theoretically available hours with 59 hours of specific scheduled/estimated tasks.

What's some recognised, standard, rule-of-thumb for productive hours in a week?

Thanks . . .

[Octoposse]

bigpriest said:

Octoposse said:

We're pushing back (which neither of us like to, having (my theory anyway!) gravitated to analysis/intelligence careers partly because they're normally pretty non confrontational, and we're non-confontational kind of people . . . ).
Thanks . . .

Not sure this is true - if you are proper BI then you are taking data that most people don't find useful and turning it into meaningful, powerful information that planning and financial decisions can be made on. Added to that you're providing the intelligence that underpins the information, giving the necessary background, an idea of data quality and risk around any caveats. I'd say confrontation, pressure to deliver and negotiating (or telling people no ) would be a major part of the role.

You are of course right! But the psychology is strange . . . I'm happy standing on a stage in front of 300 people with a graph and a lazer pointer telling them why I'm right and they're wrong (but doing that with confidence is conditional on you having had the time to marshal and analyse data thoroughly) but last time I flew (2019), BA screwed up and my seat was in the first row of Economy rather than the last row of Business Class . . . and I couldn't bring myself to complain at the time.

Straight from school I joined the Army, so 'happy' to face miscellaneous hazards . . . but have never in my entire life approached a 'strange' female in a bar or at a party.

(Being an Analyst, I have analysed the reasons for this, and it's mainly a difficult/challenging childhood).

But I digress . . . the role is an 'expert' one - it's not sorting out intractable problems in HR, it's not clawing your way to the top in management, it's not managing staff, etc.

I just want to do a good job and don't want conflict about being able to do a good job. My rather wonderful co-worker - although a much better complainer in shops or restaurants than me! - is in the same boat. She doesn't want / need that on top of juggling work and childcare. It's especially draining when the stuff coming down in by-the-yard management bks-speak like "fluid and flexible responsiveness", "work smarter not harder", "stepping up to the plate" etc.