Why Productivity Metrics Miss the Real Problem

Most productivity metrics answer the wrong question.

They measure activity, not stability.

What Metrics Are Actually Tracking

Velocity. Throughput. Utilization. Output per unit time.

These metrics assume that work moves linearly forward. They assume that once something is "done," it stays done. In real systems, that assumption fails constantly.

Work is completed, reopened, revised, reframed, or re-explained. Metrics count the motion but ignore the reversals.

A system can look productive while quietly consuming itself.

The Missing Variable: Rework

Rework is the defining feature of low productivity systems, and it is almost never measured.

How often does work need to be clarified after execution starts? How often are decisions re-litigated? How often does output require correction because intent was lost?

These are the questions that determine real productivity. They are rarely asked because the answers are uncomfortable.

Why Teams Optimize the Wrong Thing

Because metrics reward visible motion, teams optimize for speed.

They move faster into ambiguity. They ship sooner with weaker alignment. Errors surface later, when correction is expensive and politically difficult. Rework increases, but metrics still look healthy.

The organization feels busy and exhausted at the same time.

What a Productive System Actually Looks Like

In productive systems, work stabilizes.

Decisions do not wobble. Execution does not stall on clarification. Outputs survive contact with reality.

Progress appears slower at the surface because ambiguity is resolved early. Over time, these systems outperform because they do not bleed energy backward.

Productivity is not how much work moves. It is how little work returns.

The Shift That Matters

Stop asking how fast teams are moving.

Start asking how often they have to move the same work twice.

Until rework is visible, productivity metrics will continue to reward the wrong behavior.