Discussion: View Thread

Possible future changes like a 4-day work week raise questions about compensation methods. Many engineers are technically salaried but still get paid per hour billed, which can limit innovation and efficiency. <o:p></o:p>

<o:p> </o:p>

If a 4-hour work week is implemented, employees could lose 20% of their salary under the current system. One solution is to bill contracts as a lump sum to maintain salaries and encourage faster project completion. <o:p></o:p>

<o:p> </o:p>

Is there a benefit to changing project compensation to a lump sum contract, and are there associated issues?<o:p></o:p>

There are a few benefits in moving to lump sum projects:

-A tighter correlation between project cost and deliverables received.

-More incentives for productivity gains.

-Easier to track work metrics for staff (pay for production rather than for time).

-Faster rewards for innovative and productive staff (they'll see the gains in their time immediately).

-Lower management costs, since you're checking products instead of both products and hours.

There are some drawbacks:

-Unpredictable projects may result in losses for the firm or overpayment by the customer.

-Possible drop in quality with the temptation of the firm or employee to focus on quantity of projects.

-Some services don't have clear deliverables.

My employer prefers lump sum just for the management savings (no hours spent checking time sheets), and I think the industry as a whole is going more towards a production focus that tracks task metrics rather than butt-in-chair time. High performers appreciate a more clear correlation between their productivity and their rewards (pay or spare time). With a lot of the new workforce software available and the trend towards hybrid offices, tracking people's work has become far easier than tracking their time. However, this won't work for every job function or employee. Quality management will be a higher priority to ensure that the incentives for productivity don't lead to cutting corners.

Lump sum would also be a better employee management model for anyone that can work out the right metrics and tracking processes. Pay an employee a base salary for a certain number of tasks(projects/sheets/etc) per time period, and a bonus structure for more tasks than the baseline. It would have to be a business very experienced in its field, however, and a clear understanding of the core project workflow. This could be prone to abuse by employers who set an unreasonable baseline, but the market would self regulate when unreasonable employers find that they can't hold onto top performing staff. Top performers would appreciate the agency of being able to choose between having more time or a bigger bonus.

Possible future changes like a 4-day work week raise questions about compensation methods. Many engineers are technically salaried but still get paid per hour billed, which can limit innovation and efficiency. <o:p></o:p>

<o:p> </o:p>

If a 4-hour work week is implemented, employees could lose 20% of their salary under the current system. One solution is to bill contracts as a lump sum to maintain salaries and encourage faster project completion. <o:p></o:p>

<o:p> </o:p>

Is there a benefit to changing project compensation to a lump sum contract, and are there associated issues?<o:p></o:p>

There are a few benefits in moving to lump sum projects:

-A tighter correlation between project cost and deliverables received.

-More incentives for productivity gains.

-Easier to track work metrics for staff (pay for production rather than for time).

-Faster rewards for innovative and productive staff (they'll see the gains in their time immediately).

-Lower management costs, since you're checking products instead of both products and hours.

There are some drawbacks:

-Unpredictable projects may result in losses for the firm or overpayment by the customer.

-Possible drop in quality with the temptation of the firm or employee to focus on quantity of projects.

-Some services don't have clear deliverables.

My employer prefers lump sum just for the management savings (no hours spent checking time sheets), and I think the industry as a whole is going more towards a production focus that tracks task metrics rather than butt-in-chair time. High performers appreciate a more clear correlation between their productivity and their rewards (pay or spare time). With a lot of the new workforce software available and the trend towards hybrid offices, tracking people's work has become far easier than tracking their time. However, this won't work for every job function or employee. Quality management will be a higher priority to ensure that the incentives for productivity don't lead to cutting corners.

Lump sum would also be a better employee management model for anyone that can work out the right metrics and tracking processes. Pay an employee a base salary for a certain number of tasks(projects/sheets/etc) per time period, and a bonus structure for more tasks than the baseline. It would have to be a business very experienced in its field, however, and a clear understanding of the core project workflow. This could be prone to abuse by employers who set an unreasonable baseline, but the market would self regulate when unreasonable employers find that they can't hold onto top performing staff. Top performers would appreciate the agency of being able to choose between having more time or a bigger bonus.

Possible future changes like a 4-day work week raise questions about compensation methods. Many engineers are technically salaried but still get paid per hour billed, which can limit innovation and efficiency. <o:p></o:p>

<o:p> </o:p>

If a 4-hour work week is implemented, employees could lose 20% of their salary under the current system. One solution is to bill contracts as a lump sum to maintain salaries and encourage faster project completion. <o:p></o:p>

<o:p> </o:p>

Is there a benefit to changing project compensation to a lump sum contract, and are there associated issues?<o:p></o:p>

Possible future changes like a 4-day work week raise questions about compensation methods. Many engineers are technically salaried but still get paid per hour billed, which can limit innovation and efficiency. <o:p></o:p>

<o:p> </o:p>

If a 4-hour work week is implemented, employees could lose 20% of their salary under the current system. One solution is to bill contracts as a lump sum to maintain salaries and encourage faster project completion. <o:p></o:p>

<o:p> </o:p>

Is there a benefit to changing project compensation to a lump sum contract, and are there associated issues?<o:p></o:p>