I'm pretty sure it's not that nobody bothers, it's just that there is well over a decade of research and literature strongly suggesting that it's either (a) imp

I'm pretty sure it's not that nobody bothers, it's just that there is well over a decade of research and literature strongly suggesting that it's either (a) impossible to do this kind of direct productivity measurement accurately, or (b) gives the wrong idea, creating wrong incentives that generally fail to improve outcomes (or worse, that the measuring directly hinders many positive outcomes.) https://martinfowler.com/bliki/CannotMeasureProductivity.html https://martinfowler.com/bliki/CannotMeasureProductivity.htm... Outcomes are hard to measure, so we measure productivity instead. At least that's how it goes in my organization (and it does not turn out well, as suggested by the literature.) Edit: but we are for the most part not developing software as our core competency in this company, so it turns out that fixing this is a pretty low priority...