4 ms·

That's a great list in theory, but what would it really mean? - Pull-request-to-deploy is simply a latency, not a throughput factor, and may or may not corresp

That's a great list in theory, but what would it really mean? - Pull-request-to-deploy is simply a latency, not a throughput factor, and may or may not correspond to business value. - Number of deploys (without looking at features/deploy) doesn't necessarily measure business value - 36/month -> 3/month meaningful statistic, made up numbers - "Ship product 90 days earlier"- You can't really objectively prove when it would have come out otherwise Other problems include - usually the engineers are the ones who are collecting and researching these metrics so it's a conflict of interest: an engineer is never going to mention the downsides of their work in such statistics. I'm saying if I saw those "facts" on a resume (or as a manager) I'd ignore them all; they don't sound objective at all to me but more like good sounding pseudo-truth to give a low-competence manager something to work with.

beager 9y ago
I think you'd be shocked to find that on any results-oriented resume, it's nearly impossible to objectively prove essential and sole causation of positive results. A sales rep bringing in $10mm/year in deals is a great achievement, and a hiring manager may ask about the details, but just because you needed marketing, a good product, and biz dev to warm the pipe doesn't mean that you are bullshitting when you claim those results and talk about your impact on them. > usually the engineers are the ones who are collecting and researching these metrics so it's a conflict of interest: an engineer is never going to mention the downsides of their work in such statistics Yeah, that's called effective self-marketing, and everyone does it. > I'm saying if I saw those "facts" on a resume (or as a manager) I'd ignore them all; they don't sound objective at all to me but more like good sounding pseudo-truth to give a low-competence manager something to work with. Thoroughly disagree, and I would hope as an engineer to avoid encountering hiring managers who would harbor a prejudice against engineers who can identify and speak cogently about the impact of their work.

beager 9y ago

I think you'd be shocked to find that on any results-oriented resume, it's nearly impossible to objectively prove essential and sole causation of positive results. A sales rep bringing in $10mm/year in deals is a great achievement, and a hiring manager may ask about the details, but just because you needed marketing, a good product, and biz dev to warm the pipe doesn't mean that you are bullshitting when you claim those results and talk about your impact on them. > usually the engineers are the ones who are collecting and researching these metrics so it's a conflict of interest: an engineer is never going to mention the downsides of their work in such statistics Yeah, that's called effective self-marketing, and everyone does it. > I'm saying if I saw those "facts" on a resume (or as a manager) I'd ignore them all; they don't sound objective at all to me but more like good sounding pseudo-truth to give a low-competence manager something to work with. Thoroughly disagree, and I would hope as an engineer to avoid encountering hiring managers who would harbor a prejudice against engineers who can identify and speak cogently about the impact of their work.