4 ms·
> there is no one to make sure I'm on task In tech, literally every change we make is logged in a history with timestamps. If someone's output seems low, then
by humanrebar 10y ago
> there is no one to make sure I'm on task
In tech, literally every change we make is logged in a history with timestamps. If someone's output seems low, then it's straightforward how to quantify output in terms of quantity, difficulty, timeliness, etc. Of course, that requires managers that can actually evaluate the work product itself (code, docs, etc.).
- dasmoth 10y agoLooking just at commits means ignoring time spent thinking about problems, planning ahead, etc. That ought to translate into commits in the end, but assuming a steady rate of progess means you're probably not measuring the right thing. >>> Of course, that requires managers that can actually evaluate the work product itself Agree, but would specify "over a relatively long period of time."
- RandomOpinion 10y ago>In tech, literally every change we make is logged in a history with timestamps. That only applies to junior developers whose measure is the amount of code they complete and even that is potentially gameable with fluff check-ins. High-level design by senior developers, writing specifications, and QA, for example, don't have an output that's measurable in kLOC or work per unit time.
- MaulingMonkey 10y agoStats are fluffable, but is a fluff check-in really a fluff check-in if nobody actually looking at it can tell it's fluff? > High-level design by senior developers, writing specifications, and QA, for example, don't have an output that's measurable in kLOC or work per unit time. They still have measurable, logged and recorded output. Specs get checked in. Bugs get filed and updated. Sample some of it. This will better help you identify who's struggling or slacking off in the office too.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]