3 ms·

Not only is there no metric, but when we force artificial metrics onto programming teams, we are forcing them to pursue a goal other than the quality of the sof

by mustpax 17y ago

Not only is there no metric, but when we force artificial metrics onto programming teams, we are forcing them to pursue a goal other than the quality of the software itself. Any benefits derived from measurability will be eclipsed by the bad practices brought about by the metrics. Take the two of the most common pseudo-metrics: lines-of-code, bugs-closed-per-month. Lines-of-code encourages verbosity and complexity while discouraging code reuse. It also ignores essential code maintenance tasks that usually remove lines-of-code rather than adding them. Bugs-closed-per-month encourages the creation of bugs in the first place. Not that anyone intentionally makes mistakes, but it lets the programmer get away with getting it less-right the first time. Even worse, it assures continued dividends from an error-prone implementation. It would be useful to seek macroscopic measures of programmer productivity in our discipline as a whole. Let's just keep in mind the potential adverse effects of applying these metrics on the ground. Realistically, any effective macro metric will be abused my PHBs all over the world in managing their 10 man teams.

pohl 17y ago
Somehow even your use of the word "force" here still manages to understate the severity of the problem. The "Performance Management" craze is sweeping corporate management, along with the pernicious use of the "Balanced Scorecard" it advocates. Unable to identify meaningful metrics to build these scorecards with, management delegates to programmers the task of inventing metrics. Programmers, who know very well how any metric can be gamed, know that they're obligated to hand management a loaded gun, and hope they can fill the scorecards with a gun of the least-damaging calibre. This will continue unabated until a better science appears, and there's a very real possibility that one never will (if programming is more akin to an art and/or craft). I would love to have seen this presentation.
- apotheon 17y ago
  > This will continue unabated until a better science appears . . . or until a better theory of management appears and gains widespread acceptance.
srn 17y ago
I would consider "bugs opened per month" to be a good metric, assuming someone uses the software.

by mustpax 17y ago

pohl 17y ago

Somehow even your use of the word "force" here still manages to understate the severity of the problem. The "Performance Management" craze is sweeping corporate management, along with the pernicious use of the "Balanced Scorecard" it advocates. Unable to identify meaningful metrics to build these scorecards with, management delegates to programmers the task of inventing metrics. Programmers, who know very well how any metric can be gamed, know that they're obligated to hand management a loaded gun, and hope they can fill the scorecards with a gun of the least-damaging calibre. This will continue unabated until a better science appears, and there's a very real possibility that one never will (if programming is more akin to an art and/or craft). I would love to have seen this presentation.

apotheon 17y ago
> This will continue unabated until a better science appears . . . or until a better theory of management appears and gains widespread acceptance.

srn 17y ago

I would consider "bugs opened per month" to be a good metric, assuming someone uses the software.