3 ms·

I don't think this can be solved with book recommendations or one-liners. I bet the PM already knows it's unreasonable to ask for 100% quality. The person in qu

by columbo 13y ago

I don't think this can be solved with book recommendations or one-liners. I bet the PM already knows it's unreasonable to ask for 100% quality. The person in question probably comes from the mindset that setting an unachievable bar forces quality; like the line manager that screams when there's a speck of dirt on the floor after a shift. If you must continue to work with this person then you need to play by their rules. Create a manual test suite that takes about 2 hours to complete. Every time a new issue is found tell the manager that you'll add X tests and increase your test suite. Eventually you'll have a test suite that takes longer to run than the bug fixes. If the manager doesn't like the drop in performance ask them which tests you should pull out. Unit tests are arbitrary magic to non-developers whereas tests written down on paper are tangible. They can see the document grow in size and they'll start to see their name appear on the document (Added 25 more tests by direction of Joe Manager). Managers can hide from unit tests, they can accuse you of not writing enough unit tests, it's harder for them to hide from physical tests. It's not fun. Really I'd say find a new job.

cleaver 13y ago
> I bet the PM already knows it's unreasonable to ask for 100% quality. Yes. It sounds like a "give it 110%" sort of thing.
analog31 13y ago
In my view, the idea of escalating the amount of work has a pitfall, which is this: The manager isn't really looking for 100% perfect code. He or she is looking for someone who promises 100% perfect code, and can thus be blamed when a bug crops up. If you don't fulfill this function, she'll find someone else who will. The boss wants to play the game of demanding unrealistic promises.
- munin 13y ago
  there is another pitfall, which is you come up with a scheme where every hour of dev is matched by 8h of testing and your managers reaction to this is "good". (ps you probably should do 8h of testing for every hour of dev)
carbocation 13y ago
I imagine this to be CYA on his part rather than magical thinking about how this question might improve productivity. "Yes, superior, the developer PROMISED this would not cause problems and gave me his 100% guarantee." It's a ticking time bomb.
- chris_wot 13y ago
  No, the developer said that be believed it would not cause problems. They didn't give their 100% guarantee, only that they were sure it wouldn't cause any issues, to the best of their ability. There's a big difference.
p4bl0 13y ago
> The person in question probably comes from the mindset that setting an unachievable bar forces quality. Funnily enough, today's Dilbert is about this. See http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2014-03-09/ http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2014-03-09/

by columbo 13y ago

cleaver 13y ago

> I bet the PM already knows it's unreasonable to ask for 100% quality. Yes. It sounds like a "give it 110%" sort of thing.

analog31 13y ago

In my view, the idea of escalating the amount of work has a pitfall, which is this: The manager isn't really looking for 100% perfect code. He or she is looking for someone who promises 100% perfect code, and can thus be blamed when a bug crops up. If you don't fulfill this function, she'll find someone else who will. The boss wants to play the game of demanding unrealistic promises.

munin 13y ago
there is another pitfall, which is you come up with a scheme where every hour of dev is matched by 8h of testing and your managers reaction to this is "good". (ps you probably should do 8h of testing for every hour of dev)

carbocation 13y ago

I imagine this to be CYA on his part rather than magical thinking about how this question might improve productivity. "Yes, superior, the developer PROMISED this would not cause problems and gave me his 100% guarantee." It's a ticking time bomb.

chris_wot 13y ago
No, the developer said that be believed it would not cause problems. They didn't give their 100% guarantee, only that they were sure it wouldn't cause any issues, to the best of their ability. There's a big difference.

p4bl0 13y ago

> The person in question probably comes from the mindset that setting an unachievable bar forces quality. Funnily enough, today's Dilbert is about this. See http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2014-03-09/ http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2014-03-09/