Not them, but I agree with their point that management is, by definition, where the buck stops when it comes to projects, yet are never held accountable when pr

Not them, but I agree with their point that management is, by definition, where the buck stops when it comes to projects, yet are never held accountable when projects go over budget or behind schedule, and that is instead put on developers. I think that productivity has to be defined by deliverables achieved on-time. If one developer is consistently failing to achieve the time boxes that their peers collectively set, that is a red flag for their productivity. If any meaningful *percentage* of your developers aren't hitting their KPIs, that's a management failure. This distinction is important, because you can't accurately measure productivity if you don't accurately set goals. Unfortunately, this assignment of responsibility rarely actually works out properly, and developers get used as scapegoats by bad managers who are in fact themselves unproductive in their NoSP (number of successful projects) metrics, and who go from job to job and group to group blaming bad developer productivity for project failures. There is a reason we hear about developer productivity and not manager productivity, in an industry where most projects fail to meet project goals (which are a management responsibility to ensure, not a developer responsibility).