| ▲ | FatherOfCurses 3 hours ago | |
I worked as an analyst on a team doing a system replacement. The old system assigned work cases out in a plain round robin system - Person 1 got Case 1, Person 2 got Case 2, etc, regardless of what people already had on their plate. The new system looked at a number of factors and assigned a new case to people who had the least amount of overall work in their queue. So if Person 1 had 2 cases and Person 2 had 10, then Person 1 was getting the next case. Management in one division came to us after a while and said the method of assigning cases was broken, and cases were not being assigned out "fairly." They wanted us to implement the old system's round-robin assignment method in the new system. After some investigation I determined that workers had figured out ways to game the system in order to seem more busy than they actually were and therefore receive less new cases. As a result efficient workers who were actually doing their jobs were getting punished with new cases while inefficient workers were getting rewarded. I, another analyst from that division, and my management laid out a very clear case that if employees were not properly handling their cases, and not being monitored on their progress (by all the new monitoring tools the new system provided) then changing the method of distributing cases wouldn't fix the underlying problem. We were overruled and forced to implement the technical solution to the human problem. | ||