While debated for over 30 years, productivity and staffing continue to be a challenging topic for the clinical engineering (CE) community.At the core of this challenge is the lack of reliable indicators substantiated by actual data.This article reports an attempt to evaluate some traditional and newer indicators using data collected from 2 distinct sources. Results confirm early concerns that worked hours self-entered by CE staff are subject to misuse and thus should be avoided. In contrast, good statistical correlation was found for staffing data with several hospital indicators that are consistently collected and widely available. Good correlation with CE department indicators was more difficult to find, apparently because of the lack of reliable records and consistent accounting of all CE resources and expenditures.Although no single, easy-to-measure and easy-to-understand indicator emerged as a replacement for the worked-to-paid-hours ratio, it is shown that a multidimensional model can be built to benchmark productivity and staffing. Calculations from such a model are accurate, but not precise, so the results need to be interpreted carefully.With proper precautions, such comparisons can be used as a good starting point for a more detailed analysis of the differences that could reveal substantive causes such as service scope and strategy, organizational characteristics, and geographical challenges as well as opportunities for major productivity improvements.