Skip to main content

The number improved. Did the work improve?

Prepared by the Flawian team · Reviewed .

Check what the number counts before judging the work. A support handler closed 20 distinct tickets, up from 12, but 8 reopened by Monday; the other 12 are not proven resolved. Without the earlier week's reopenings and case mix, the count does not show better work. This example is not a pay, promotion or dismissal policy.

Principle and explanation

A larger completed-work count can hide unfinished problems. Before judging someone's performance, check what the number counts, whether the work was comparable and what result the customer actually received.

Name the useful result before choosing the number

Quantity and quality describe different parts of work. The US Office of Personnel Management also separates timeliness and resource use, and allows observable descriptions when a number is unsuitable. Its federal appraisal rules are not a policy for your business.

For the support handler, recording a closure is an activity in the system. Resolving the customer's issue is the intended result. A closure count can help locate work to inspect, but it cannot establish that result by itself.

Compare like work and expose what was outside the role

A week with difficult cases or missing supplier information may differ from a week of straightforward requests. Acas, the workplace advice service for England, Scotland and Wales, advises that fair objectives reflect the person's usual tasks and workload. Discuss the underlying records with the person who does the work before interpreting a change.

The example gives no comparable reopening history for the earlier week. Twelve closures then and twenty now cannot establish that resolution improved. Nor can the supplier's unanswered question establish that the handler made too little effort.

A good measure is clear about what it leaves out

For this case, the record needs a distinct-ticket definition, a closure period and a later reopening check. The check date limits what can be concluded: a ticket that has not reopened by Monday may reopen later. Separately waiting tickets should not silently enter or leave the same group.

A useful expectation also need not demand an ever-higher number. Some results improve when a number falls, and maintaining reliable work can be worthwhile. This example is a way to inspect a measure, not a pay, promotion or dismissal policy.

Worked example

Twenty closures, including eight problems that return

A support handler records closures for 20 distinct tickets during a Monday–Friday week. The previous week's count was twelve. Each ticket counts once within its week, even if it was closed more than once.

By the following Monday morning, eight of the twenty have reopened because the customer's issue remains unresolved. That leaves twelve with no reopening recorded by this review. It does not prove those twelve are permanently resolved.

The owner cannot compare resolution rates across the two weeks: the earlier week's reopening history and case mix are missing. Some other tickets await supplier information; those are outside the twenty-ticket group and remain visible separately.

The lesson is that a higher closure count is not proof of better work. Check the completion definition, follow-up period, case mix and quality before deciding what the number means about the role.

  • This is an invented case. The count uses distinct tickets with a closure recorded within the named week, not the number of times the Close button was used.
  • The reopening observation ends at the following Monday morning review. Later outcomes are unknown.
  • No earlier-week reopening data, comparable case mix or worker motivation is supplied. Tickets awaiting suppliers are explicitly outside the group of twenty.
What the twenty-ticket group establishes at Monday's review
GroupCountSupported conclusion
Tickets with a closure recorded during the week20Twenty distinct tickets reached the recorded closure state
From those twenty: reopened by Monday8Their issues were not durably resolved at this review
From those twenty: no reopening recorded by Monday12No reopening observed yet; later outcome unknown
Other tickets awaiting supplier informationNot supplied; outside the twentyWaiting work exists; no effort judgment follows

Try it with your own numbers

Count each ticket or other item of completed work once, even if it was closed more than once. Include only items whose closure was recorded in the period you name.

Items from this group that came back because the problem remained. This cannot be more than the number closed. Items still waiting on someone else stay outside this group; keep them in a separate list.

Your result

Fill in every field to see the result.

Your numbers stay in this browser. Nothing you type is sent or saved.

Common misconceptions

Twenty closures are better performance than twelve.
The count rose, but comparable quality and work mix are missing. The example does not establish a better or worse overall week.
Fewer corrections always mean better quality.
Fewer completed jobs can also produce fewer corrections. Compare the relevant job counts, error definitions and severity before reaching a conclusion.
Missing the number tells me the person is unmotivated.
A number does not reveal intent. Access, external waits, changing work and the measure itself need examination.

First step

Try one number against actual work

Choose a measure and inspect one good outcome, one poor outcome that could still increase the number and one factor the person cannot control. Agree what counts, the period, the quality check and the record everyone can consult. Use that evidence to discuss a realistic expectation with the person.

Sources