5 ms·

> the problem is trivially fixed by management by attaching tim’s name to any tickets he may have helped out on. I don't think this comes even close to solving

> the problem is trivially fixed by management by attaching tim’s name to any tickets he may have helped out on. I don't think this comes even close to solving the problem. This in fact makes the problem worse, because a) you admit the metric is shit and does not reflect work, b) you opt to keep the bullshit metric but instead try to manipulate it to bump the score under some scenario. That's not desirable outcome by any metric. In the end you're building up a system where everyone participating in it knows it's a fraude but just keep gaming it because they become too heavily invested in it.

throwaway7783 2y ago
While a number measuring productivity may not work, I read the GP as simply recording contributions. I like that approach. Now you can not only have peer recommendations, but also tangible records.
- JohnMakin 2y ago
  In large org, i saw people quietly move up the ladder this way by being visibly effective even if their outright contributions may have been difficult for nontechnical or understaffed management teams can see. it’s an essential survival skill, not making any case whether or not it’s right to begin with - I often navigate these systems because I have to. you will of course have people gaming the system but peers tend to realize what is happening there, and that’s a management problem IMHO
bberenberg 2y ago
I don’t think anyone is saying it’s a good solution. It’s one amongst many bad ones that are used because that’s what we have. For example, I’ve been running a remote team for 8ish years now and I keep begging people to have conversations in public channels. One of the reasons is to see who’s spending a lot of time lending a hand. Guess what, devs refuse to do that. So what am I supposed to do? I have a person who I highly suspect isn’t doing much work, and is basically rotating through other team members to help him get unstuck. Not a bad guy, but probably not up to our standards. Just ask people you say? Many cultures don’t allow for someone to say bad things about their coworker even if it would help to improve the team. I’m not arguing for any one solution because I don’t know of any magical solution. If you have better metrics or management skills than what everyone in the world has figured out, myself and many others would gladly adopt these approaches.
- whatshisface 2y ago
  It sounds like your employees believe that talking to you or amongst each other, where you can read it, will get their friends laid off or bad decisions made without advice. You might want to put a layer of management between you and them, if you can find someone with the skill of trust and relationship building.
  - hansmayer 2y ago
    I think a competent technical lead would do wonders in this case too ;)
- metric10 2y ago
  Sounds like both a lack of trust and communication between you and the team. > If you have better metrics or management skills than what everyone in the world has figured out, myself and many others would gladly adopt these approaches. Oh boy... edit: One issue might be they fear that bad news will lead to a knee jerk reaction that gets them or their teammates fired. They should feel comfortable to encounter problems and openly discuss them in the open with out fear of repercussions. In fact, I would argue this is one of the major advantages of a team; pooling collective knowledge and abilities. If people fear honest communication then the performance of the team is impacted. The manager has the greatest ability to fix this, IMHO...
- bonesss 2y ago
  > "I keep begging people to have conversations in public channels... Guess what, devs refuse to do that." So, stop begging. Managerial directives come as orders, not pretty-please requests. Also, stop letting your subordinates refuse you. They are your reports, you are approving their money, that can change if they aren't doing their jobs. Fire one for ignoring policy, and their attitudes will change. On the tech side, clarify that you want all project comms logged and searchable for onboarding and auto-generating documentation as well as identifying technical hotspots where investments in refactoring can save the team time. Whatever. What gets measured gets done, if you are trying to spy on everyone, this is a bad way. Do it if it has value. > "Many cultures don’t allow for someone to say bad things about their coworker" Managers in any culture, and especially across cultures, are tasked with learning those cultural sensitivities and then working around them pragmatically. You have identified a problem. That is the start of solutions, not the end of them. > "If you have better metrics or management skills than what everyone in the world has figured out" This kind of attitude isn't productive at finding genuine answers, and might be obfuscating the problem. Lots of people have figured out better metrics and management skills than the local application suggests. It's not the advanced esoteric stuff that is missing, it's the basics.
hnlmorg 2y ago
I have managed a team in an organisation that used Jira heavily to measure velocity and having all contributors record time on tickets, even if they were just supporting, did actually help lots: 1. It allows for more accurate estimations (ie this is not a multi-day task but it is a multi-person task) 2. It showed where knowledge transferring was happing 3. It showed that people were busy so that it meant we were making accurate estimates to begin with. I do think Agile can get overly prescriptive. But if you do happen to work in a company that operates that way, pushing back might be impossible. So having multiple participants record their effort against the same ticket then allows a more organic way for the team to operate despite the rigid structure of a stricter scrum dynamic. Or in other words: sometimes you cannot change the system entirely so you’re next best option is to tweak it so it at least better works for you. And that’s what the GPs suggest achieves.
Izkata 2y ago
More like bug/case tracking is crap on this. All the ones I've ever used only support one assignee, so even in equal pair programming you have to choose who officially gets the case. They're suggesting working around the case tracker, not around the metric.
cyberax 2y ago
> This in fact makes the problem worse, because a) you admit the metric is shit and does not reflect work It's just like in physics: "all models are wrong, some are useful". All metrics are wrong, but some are useful when they are correctly applied.
TZubiri 2y ago
In a company or any business you need to deliver something, if you are being paid X amount of money, the payer needs to know they are getting something in return, and it's not a management problem that they ask what was done this week.
johnnyanmac 2y ago
GP is orking off the assumedly common premise of peopel raising complaints of metrics and getting shrugs from management or Product. Who have their own incentives to keep them up. if you can't throw out the game you may as well adjust the rules.

throwaway7783 2y ago

While a number measuring productivity may not work, I read the GP as simply recording contributions. I like that approach. Now you can not only have peer recommendations, but also tangible records.

JohnMakin 2y ago
In large org, i saw people quietly move up the ladder this way by being visibly effective even if their outright contributions may have been difficult for nontechnical or understaffed management teams can see. it’s an essential survival skill, not making any case whether or not it’s right to begin with - I often navigate these systems because I have to. you will of course have people gaming the system but peers tend to realize what is happening there, and that’s a management problem IMHO

bberenberg 2y ago

I don’t think anyone is saying it’s a good solution. It’s one amongst many bad ones that are used because that’s what we have. For example, I’ve been running a remote team for 8ish years now and I keep begging people to have conversations in public channels. One of the reasons is to see who’s spending a lot of time lending a hand. Guess what, devs refuse to do that. So what am I supposed to do? I have a person who I highly suspect isn’t doing much work, and is basically rotating through other team members to help him get unstuck. Not a bad guy, but probably not up to our standards. Just ask people you say? Many cultures don’t allow for someone to say bad things about their coworker even if it would help to improve the team. I’m not arguing for any one solution because I don’t know of any magical solution. If you have better metrics or management skills than what everyone in the world has figured out, myself and many others would gladly adopt these approaches.

whatshisface 2y ago
It sounds like your employees believe that talking to you or amongst each other, where you can read it, will get their friends laid off or bad decisions made without advice. You might want to put a layer of management between you and them, if you can find someone with the skill of trust and relationship building.
- hansmayer 2y ago
  I think a competent technical lead would do wonders in this case too ;)
metric10 2y ago
Sounds like both a lack of trust and communication between you and the team. > If you have better metrics or management skills than what everyone in the world has figured out, myself and many others would gladly adopt these approaches. Oh boy... edit: One issue might be they fear that bad news will lead to a knee jerk reaction that gets them or their teammates fired. They should feel comfortable to encounter problems and openly discuss them in the open with out fear of repercussions. In fact, I would argue this is one of the major advantages of a team; pooling collective knowledge and abilities. If people fear honest communication then the performance of the team is impacted. The manager has the greatest ability to fix this, IMHO...
bonesss 2y ago
> "I keep begging people to have conversations in public channels... Guess what, devs refuse to do that." So, stop begging. Managerial directives come as orders, not pretty-please requests. Also, stop letting your subordinates refuse you. They are your reports, you are approving their money, that can change if they aren't doing their jobs. Fire one for ignoring policy, and their attitudes will change. On the tech side, clarify that you want all project comms logged and searchable for onboarding and auto-generating documentation as well as identifying technical hotspots where investments in refactoring can save the team time. Whatever. What gets measured gets done, if you are trying to spy on everyone, this is a bad way. Do it if it has value. > "Many cultures don’t allow for someone to say bad things about their coworker" Managers in any culture, and especially across cultures, are tasked with learning those cultural sensitivities and then working around them pragmatically. You have identified a problem. That is the start of solutions, not the end of them. > "If you have better metrics or management skills than what everyone in the world has figured out" This kind of attitude isn't productive at finding genuine answers, and might be obfuscating the problem. Lots of people have figured out better metrics and management skills than the local application suggests. It's not the advanced esoteric stuff that is missing, it's the basics.

hnlmorg 2y ago

I have managed a team in an organisation that used Jira heavily to measure velocity and having all contributors record time on tickets, even if they were just supporting, did actually help lots: 1. It allows for more accurate estimations (ie this is not a multi-day task but it is a multi-person task) 2. It showed where knowledge transferring was happing 3. It showed that people were busy so that it meant we were making accurate estimates to begin with. I do think Agile can get overly prescriptive. But if you do happen to work in a company that operates that way, pushing back might be impossible. So having multiple participants record their effort against the same ticket then allows a more organic way for the team to operate despite the rigid structure of a stricter scrum dynamic. Or in other words: sometimes you cannot change the system entirely so you’re next best option is to tweak it so it at least better works for you. And that’s what the GPs suggest achieves.

Izkata 2y ago

More like bug/case tracking is crap on this. All the ones I've ever used only support one assignee, so even in equal pair programming you have to choose who officially gets the case. They're suggesting working around the case tracker, not around the metric.

cyberax 2y ago

> This in fact makes the problem worse, because a) you admit the metric is shit and does not reflect work It's just like in physics: "all models are wrong, some are useful". All metrics are wrong, but some are useful when they are correctly applied.

TZubiri 2y ago

In a company or any business you need to deliver something, if you are being paid X amount of money, the payer needs to know they are getting something in return, and it's not a management problem that they ask what was done this week.

johnnyanmac 2y ago

GP is orking off the assumedly common premise of peopel raising complaints of metrics and getting shrugs from management or Product. Who have their own incentives to keep them up. if you can't throw out the game you may as well adjust the rules.