Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!uwm.edu!bionet!agate!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!abvax!iccgcc!kambic
From: kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: Software Quality
Message-ID: <4239.2805a798@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com>
Date: 12 Apr 91 17:27:04 GMT
References: <36650001@hpopd.pwd.hp.com> <3955.27ee3172@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> <1853@manta.NOSC.MIL> <1991Apr2.200958.8208@spool.cs.wisc.edu> <4909@berry7.UUCP>
Lines: 15

In article <4909@berry7.UUCP>, saxena@motcid.UUCP (Garurank P. Saxena) writes:
> dparter@shorty.cs.wisc.edu (David Parter) writes:
> So far so good. However, if 
> the manager takes positive steps and tries to improve the person's 
> capabilities, that is a good use of the metrics data. What engineers
> fear most is that the metrics will be utilised in a manner which will 
> affect them negatively. 
These are messages that top management must pound into everyone.  Both the 
engineers and management are measuring to improve, not to evaluate, and that 
both engineers must learn to take risks: the risk of presenting metrics 
data so that everyone knows product/process status, and management risk 
of waiting to let the engineers apply the metrics to improve the process.

GXKambic
standard disclaimer