When the daily calculations you make are influencing commercial decisions about resources and recruitment for some of the UK’s biggest brands, there’s little room for subjectivity.

This is very different to my previous work in the creative sector, where subjectivity often influenced decision-making. It’s yet another adjustment I’ve got used to over the last 21 months in my role as a productivity analyst.

I’ve noticed some similarities with my former work, too. In the same way that, as a videographer, I had to break content into messaging segments, I am now breaking a process into steps. And my media background trained me to observe complex human data and structure it into a clear narrative. In my current role, I’m using data to develop a clear, factual narrative for process improvement.

But back to my original point about subjectivity:

how do we stay objective in our work, and how do we make sure clients see consistent outcomes?

The answer, I believe, lies in accreditation.

My natural inclination towards systems and processes meant that, as someone new to this industry, seeking accreditation with the Institute of Management Services was my first port of call. It helped me get up to speed for working on customer sites and gave me confidence from the outset. I enjoyed the Productivity Analyst and Measurement Practitioner training, and it helped me to know that the training took me to the same level as other people doing the same role as me. It gave me a frame of reference and helped me go out there more confidently to do the work I do.

One thing that surprised me was that IMS accreditation isn’t mandatory. In some sectors, or for certain projects – such as government contracts – it is, and there are some companies who won’t accept non-accredited practitioners on site. I can see why. From a customer perspective, surely there’s huge value in knowing that the data you will use to inform significant business decisions is being captured consistently.

I see other benefits associated with accreditation, too, for clients and practitioners alike.

Familiarity

One of the most useful aspects of the training, for me, has been that it covers many different examples. I found this so helpful, because our roles take us into a lot of different business environments. We often find ourselves going to unfamiliar places, meeting new people, and quickly having to get our heads around processes we might never have seen before. The IMS training means that when I go to a new customer site, I will have invariably seen or rated something similar before. This familiarity means I feel better equipped to deliver accurate data, which is crucial for our clients – whether they are running a laboratory, a warehouse, or a factory.

Consistency

Having a universal system and standard for capturing data has been incredibly valuable to me. Rating everything we observe against the key criteria of effort, efficiency and speed gives every productivity analyst a clear benchmark to work to. Often as a delivery team on site we’ll check in and compare notes to make sure we’re aligned in the way we are recording data, which is helpful for us – and even better for the client who will be using it.

A common language

I often find myself working with different analysts on different projects. Having a shared language – in data collection terms – means we can get onto the same page straight away without the inconsistencies associated with subjectivity creeping in and skewing the data. I always found this challenging when I was working in the creative sector.

Feedback on creative projects was generally based on opinion, not always fact, which could make it difficult to approach things from the same angle and get to the outcome the client was looking for. This is not the case in my current role, which is far more fact-based and process-driven, made easier by the shared language of productivity analysis. This standardisation and shared understanding solidifies our ability to create accurate, actionable data, which we can build into models for our clients.

Building my network

Every year, accredited productivity analysts are reassessed at an annual ‘clinic.’ This involves observing a variety of different scenarios to make sure that we still understand the factors that relate to judging time and performance, irrespective of the environment and the scenario. Meeting people on the accreditation training and seeing them again at our annual rating reassessments is helping me to build my network of contacts in a new industry.

For me, the value of accreditation in this industry can’t be underestimated. It’s helped me hit the ground running in a brand-new career; know that the work I’m doing meets industry standards; and keep my knowledge and skills up to date. But perhaps the most enduring benefit is the community. Meeting people on the accreditation training and seeing them again at our annual rating reassessments is helping me to build my network of contacts in a new industry. This shared commitment to objectivity strengthens every analyst—and the models we build for our clients.

I would recommend anyone who hasn’t experienced rating training to take a look at what’s on offer from the Institute of Management Services (IMS).