TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
To refer to "work-months", or "staff-months", strikes me as fine from a
scheduling point of view. I'm thinking of a large factory setting or the
like (anywhere with interchangeable, repetitive tasks, and probably it
represents some sort of aggregate or average "standard" month--might be
useful for planning purposes, I don't know, maybe it's a pre-computer,
legacy concept?), but I take Rebecca's point from a contractual
perspective.
I usually use the term "billable hour" when refering to work-time that I
or my associates might perform for a potential client. So if I estimate
100 billable hours in a week, I rely on the word "billable" to convey
the idea that I'm not talking about one, or any specific person doing
the work, just that the client can expect to be billed for 100 hours,
and we are undertaking to work those hours in the space of one week.
Would I talk about a billable month? No, a project so large that I could
usefully break down the tasks of multiple people performing similar
tasks for months on end is simply right outside my domain.
