I’m going to model the behavior of people from sort of an operations engineering angle, using Paul Cooijmans’ trifold breakdown of problem-solving traits: intelligence, conscientiousness, and associative horizon.
High IQ: Capable of completing difficult tasks, and completes easy tasks more quickly.
High conscientiousness: Does what they’re told, spends no time on other things.
High AH: Does what they want. Spends some time on what they’re told, but also time on what they aren’t told. (E.g. Google’s 20% time policy acknowledges this trait.)
All three traits increase the quality of a finished product or project, but that’s basically impossible to measure or plug into a Gantt chart so I won’t go into that yet.
Figure every human process has a threshold IQ, after which the time required is divided by IQ. So some pseudocode for modeling this would be:
if employee.getIQ < difficulty:
print("This employee was not smart enough to complete the task you assigned.")
print("The employee completed the task in " + time_spent(difficulty, employee.getIQ) + " hours.")
I figure that calculating the time_spent function ought to be done the way mechanics are paid: by measuring the time spent by average performers and then estimating based on the folksy observation that two standard deviations in IQ corresponds to performing mental tasks problems about five times faster. Tasks would have to be given a cerebral index for how g-loaded they are, versus how mechanical (writing a report might have an cerebral index of 3 and changing oil might have an index of 1.2).
The interaction between conscientiousness and associative horizon is like time-sharing in a processor. Think about it this way: each person has an external list of prioritized tasks given by authority figures, and an internal list of prioritized tasks representing personal interest. Time is apportioned in order of which tasks are personally weighted as the most important, and each task receives an interval of time representing a person's level of focus. Conscientiousness refers to A) focus (longer time intervals) and B) assigning greater weight to pleasing others. Associative horizon refers to assigning greater weight to gratifying one's own interests. On a macro scale it's better if everyone has high associative horizon because more of the things people care about actually get done (maximizes global problem-solving and happiness). On a micro scale, it's better if everyone has high conscientiousness so that long projects and deferred gratification are possible.
When I'm analyzing acquaintances in broad strokes, I like to use the qualitative categories "low", "normal", and "high". I use "normal" in the vernacular sense meaning "without considerable defect but not special either", so a "normal" IQ would be something like 115, and "low" would be 100 and below. A person of normal intelligence can understand and follow simple instructions, but not much else. A person of normal conscientiousness can adhere to a list of tasks and a calendar most of the time, almost always shows up to work appointments on time, and shows up to personal appointments a little bit late most of the time. A person of normal associative horizon has a reasonably objective sense of himself and the external world and a small deficit in common sense.
Hopefully that gets the gist across, it's mostly not formalized at this point.