After spending time trying to drill down to the actual data, I see stuff like this in the report as (one of) the first proofs they offer for how productivity did not decrease:
"Information was collected on cases actively being
worked on — added, edited, or closed — at the Reykjavík
Service Centres before and after the trial started in
March 2015. The number of active cases at the two
service centres did not decrease during the trial, but
in fact increased overall — which can be partially
explained by seasonal factors. However, it seems
nevertheless clear that the trial did not have a negative
effect on the processing of cases."
Isn't that .. just completely wild?
"We analyzed how many open cases they had before and after the hour reduction, and actually the open cases increased, which goes completely against the results we're claiming, but hey, it's probably just from "seasonal variations" that we won't spend any breath explaining to the reader, so yeah, even though the results directly conflict with our conclusion, somehow that means that our conclusion is right."
After spending time trying to drill down to the actual data, I see stuff like this in the report as (one of) the first proofs they offer for how productivity did not decrease:
"Information was collected on cases actively being worked on — added, edited, or closed — at the Reykjavík Service Centres before and after the trial started in March 2015. The number of active cases at the two service centres did not decrease during the trial, but in fact increased overall — which can be partially explained by seasonal factors. However, it seems nevertheless clear that the trial did not have a negative effect on the processing of cases."
Isn't that .. just completely wild?
"We analyzed how many open cases they had before and after the hour reduction, and actually the open cases increased, which goes completely against the results we're claiming, but hey, it's probably just from "seasonal variations" that we won't spend any breath explaining to the reader, so yeah, even though the results directly conflict with our conclusion, somehow that means that our conclusion is right."