[theamk]

Sure, productivity it's not cut-n-dry stat, but it's not completely impossible to measure either. For a team, there are very clear goals: to make product that customers like, and to keep improving it for a long time. The last part is especially hard to measure, so people do all sorts of approximations, some very bad.

For individual, productivity is measured on multiple axis - new long-term features, throw-away and prototypes, code maintenance, fire-fighting, code reviews, high-level design, outside-of-team communications, intra-team communications (for example helping teammates), archeology, specific parts of your project, probably others. In ideal team, everyone is strong on at least one or two axes, so no person is worse than others. In real teams, I've seen people who were weak on every single axis and did not seem to improve with time. I've also seen people who are great at everything, and it's extremely nice when such people exist - but they are very rare.

(Btw, re your specific example: if you weren't productive because you were waiting for others to approve your access then you were not productive. There is nothing complex about this, there were plenty of times when I've said, "I did nothing for project S last week because they still could not give me access")

[kitd]

For a team, there are very clear goals: to make product that customers like, ...

With respect, that goal is far from clear. How do you measure how much they like the product? Have we achieved more "likes" this sprint than last?

Customers like a product because it removes their problems. QED.

[feoren]

> With respect, that goal is far from clear. How do you measure how much they like the product?

Completely agree: focus groups, A/B testing, Net Promoter Score, 5-stars, like/dislike -- all of those systems are notorious for being unreliable in various ways, and optimizing for them is the cause of many sub-optimal decisions and Prisoner's Dilemmas in many industries.

> Customers like a product because it removes their problems. QED.

Your first point was "actually the world is really complicated" (strong agree) and your second was "actually the world is super simple" (strong disagree). Customers like products for wild reasons, unknown even to themselves. I've heard some slot-machine addicts get irritated if they win the jackpot, because it breaks them out of their state of flow. You could argue "well clearly that lack of flow was the problem slot machines are solving" but then you're just using circular reasoning: if a customer likes a product, it must be solving the problem for them that they previously did not have that product. I don't think you could have looked at the slot-machine addict a year before they started gambling and deduced that they had some sort of problem that slot machines needed to fill. There's often no clear link from a-priori diagnosable "problems" that people have to the products that they buy. In the universe populated by logical econs that do act this way, store shelves and advertising look very different.