Loading Profile...
EMPLOYEE
Discussion about value of automated measurement
As the questions has turned into a discussion, I will move it here:
"Mark,
I'm going by what I've read on your web-site. If you want to tell me more about the details of the measurements you take and what you interpret from them, then I'll make a better assessment.
But, like I say, it certainly sounds from your site that four of the metrics are : Contribution Size ("amount of code"), Activity (I'm guessing, frequency of checkins), Complexity ("McCabe's Cyclomatic") and Density of Comments (ratio of comments to code). These are the are ones I've been discussing previously. And I still claim that there is no way on earth that, given these metrics for two programmers, independent of having some corresponding metrics of the *problem* that's being solved, you can assess which programmer was "better" or "more productive".
(And given that the site says : "Decide the value of programmer instantly, based on his contributions" ... it certainly sounds like you're claiming you can do that.)
The other metrics like "measurement of know-how" I haven't commented on because I honestly can't imagine what they really mean or how you'd measure what I think of as "know-how". Again, I'll be fascinated to know more.
The fact that you're gathering the measurements described above, and the fact you say they make program managers "smarter" suggests to me that you consider them to be genuinely informative of something. So you can't in the next breath turn around and say : but it's ok, "there is still human with brains evaluating the reports we provide".
Either those brains are ignoring the metrics (in which case the whole thing is pointless) or the brains are taking them as important evidence (which is what I'm disputing.)
cheers
phil
BTW : One thing I give you kudos for : having the courage to link this discussion from your site. Well done on that."
"Mark,
I'm going by what I've read on your web-site. If you want to tell me more about the details of the measurements you take and what you interpret from them, then I'll make a better assessment.
But, like I say, it certainly sounds from your site that four of the metrics are : Contribution Size ("amount of code"), Activity (I'm guessing, frequency of checkins), Complexity ("McCabe's Cyclomatic") and Density of Comments (ratio of comments to code). These are the are ones I've been discussing previously. And I still claim that there is no way on earth that, given these metrics for two programmers, independent of having some corresponding metrics of the *problem* that's being solved, you can assess which programmer was "better" or "more productive".
(And given that the site says : "Decide the value of programmer instantly, based on his contributions" ... it certainly sounds like you're claiming you can do that.)
The other metrics like "measurement of know-how" I haven't commented on because I honestly can't imagine what they really mean or how you'd measure what I think of as "know-how". Again, I'll be fascinated to know more.
The fact that you're gathering the measurements described above, and the fact you say they make program managers "smarter" suggests to me that you consider them to be genuinely informative of something. So you can't in the next breath turn around and say : but it's ok, "there is still human with brains evaluating the reports we provide".
Either those brains are ignoring the metrics (in which case the whole thing is pointless) or the brains are taking them as important evidence (which is what I'm disputing.)
cheers
phil
BTW : One thing I give you kudos for : having the courage to link this discussion from your site. Well done on that."
Follow this discussion to get notifications on your dashboard.
Create a customer community for your own organization
Plans starting at $19/month
-
Inappropriate?"I'm going by what I've read on your web-site. If you want to tell me more about the details of the measurements you take and what you interpret from them, then I'll make a better assessment. "
we can arrange you a trial to better assess the Programeter metrics. Please, contact me directly for that.
-
Inappropriate?"Activity (I'm guessing, frequency of checkins)"
wrong guess. Activity is measured by times developer has done non-zero changes into the code components.
1 Comment
Add a comment
-
how does "frequency of check-ins" differ from "number of times programmer changes code components"? ... you mean one is "5 times a day" and the other is "2400 times over the last month"??? -
Inappropriate?"The fact that you're gathering the measurements described above, and the fact you say they make program managers "smarter" suggests to me that you consider them to be genuinely informative of something. So you can't in the next breath turn around and say : but it's ok, "there is still human with brains evaluating the reports we provide".
Either those brains are ignoring the metrics (in which case the whole thing is pointless) or the brains are taking them as important evidence (which is what I'm disputing.) "
those brains can also take metrics as call to action. For example, if you see suspicious metrics, you pay additional attention to code review. And there are more examples where metrics can lead you to very important decisions
-
Inappropriate?Seriously Mark. Wouldn't it be much smarter just to have a good manager of the programmers who actually talks to them every day about what they're doing and has a pretty good understanding of what it is and how things are going? That's early enough warning if things are starting to go wrong.
Your software seems to be designed for a world where one person supervises dozens of programmers at once, without having any deep engagement with the work they're doing, and so needs some kind of simplistic statistical early warning system.
It assumes that running a software company is like running some stereotypical factory production line.
But how many successful software companies or projects are run like that? Not Google. Not Microsoft. None that I can think of.
Does the software development in your company work like this?
Programmers hate the idea ... not because they reject performance-measurement but, like anyone else, they want their performance to be assessed by what they actually work with. Programmers produce *ideas*, algorithms, abstractions, architectural patterns, mathematical entities. That's the criteria they want to be judged by.
They don't produce "lines of code" or "check-in events" any more than their managers produce "emails" and "spreadsheets" and would like to be judged on the amount of those they produce.
That's different from sales. Sales-people actually *do* produce "sales" and so that performance-measure is appropriate to them. -
Inappropriate?"Seriously Mark. Wouldn't it be much smarter just to have a good manager of the programmers who actually talks to them every day about what they're doing and has a pretty good understanding of what it is and how things are going? That's early enough warning if things are starting to go wrong. "
Yes, good manager is a good choice. But it is not always possible. Following could be the reasons for that:
* Additional managers are expensive. Especially if manager is "good"
* Not all managers have programmer background. So sometimes they need tools to help them out to understand what has really been done
* Managers and developers are often located in different offices, city or even countries. It makes it very difficult to meet developers on daily basis. Personally I have participated in project like this, and I have met my project managers once per few months.
So what you describe is an ideal case. But unfortunately, not all software is developed in ideal worlds.
I’m excited
-
Inappropriate?"Programmers hate the idea ... not because they reject performance-measurement but, like anyone else, they want their performance to be assessed by what they actually work with. Programmers produce *ideas*, algorithms, abstractions, architectural patterns, mathematical entities. That's the criteria they want to be judged by. "
Considering the fact that most negative comments came from those who never tried our Programeter, I would not agree with you. It seems to me that just the idea of performance measurement is very provocative and generates lots of emotions.
We are helping lots of managers already, and they feel more informed with our indicators than without. So early enough warning, as you said, is something very valuable.2 Comments Add a comment
-
not agree with which of my claims? that "most programmers hate the idea"? Or that they hate it because they want to be assessed on an ability that the software doesn't measure?
-
my comment was related to your argument that programmers don't reject performance-measurement idea
