3 ms·

I don't think so. Basically, with metrics you are saying that you need to reduce a multidimensional value down to a single dimension. In addition, metrics are o

I don't think so. Basically, with metrics you are saying that you need to reduce a multidimensional value down to a single dimension. In addition, metrics are open to gaming. Take for example cycle time: >Cycle Time: If you can only have 1 metric, make it cycle time. Cycle time measures the amount of time from work started to work delivered; in other words, the amount of time from first commit to production release. Cycle time is important because it is a proxy for how optimized your team is. If cycle time is being optimized for, then eventually, someone on the team will discover that if they make an "experimental prototype" on their laptop before checking it in, their cycle time goes down a lot. There really is no substitute for an involved manager, however that does not scale, and so you go to metrics. But, I would argue, you have already damaged the culture.

freepor 7y ago
You’d never take a team wide metric like cycle time (which is a function of the whole company) and use it to evaluate a single person. There shouldn’t be any benefit to an individual to have a low cycle time.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago
  > You’d never take a team wide metric like cycle time (which is a function of the whole company) and use it to evaluate a single person In theory, yes. But in practice, I bet there are a lot of people here who have stories of a metric that was supposed to only be used team wide, but was used for evaluating an individual.
  - mvpmvh 7y ago
    team metrics show the team is underperforming? team lead, CTO, etc. gets canned
    - notarapper 7y ago
      Honestly I don't think you can avoid getting measured, even if the person measuring only does it in their head. If you feel you're doing a good job than it's best for you to measure that on your own and show proof for that instead of your boss relating on their instincts... Also if you feel you can do better than it's probably best that you understand why in order to improve that, so your boss won't have the need to let you go. Everyone's looking at the one negative side but there are tons of positives that apply to a large percentage of the worforce

freepor 7y ago

You’d never take a team wide metric like cycle time (which is a function of the whole company) and use it to evaluate a single person. There shouldn’t be any benefit to an individual to have a low cycle time.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago
> You’d never take a team wide metric like cycle time (which is a function of the whole company) and use it to evaluate a single person In theory, yes. But in practice, I bet there are a lot of people here who have stories of a metric that was supposed to only be used team wide, but was used for evaluating an individual.
- mvpmvh 7y ago
  team metrics show the team is underperforming? team lead, CTO, etc. gets canned
  - notarapper 7y ago
    Honestly I don't think you can avoid getting measured, even if the person measuring only does it in their head. If you feel you're doing a good job than it's best for you to measure that on your own and show proof for that instead of your boss relating on their instincts... Also if you feel you can do better than it's probably best that you understand why in order to improve that, so your boss won't have the need to let you go. Everyone's looking at the one negative side but there are tons of positives that apply to a large percentage of the worforce