Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!hplabs!otter.hpl.hp.com!hpltoad!cdollin!kers From: kers@hplb.hpl.hp.com (Chris Dollin) Newsgroups: comp.software-eng Subject: Re: What's "Average" in Software? (was Re: bridge building and discipline) Message-ID: Date: 22 May 91 08:40:29 GMT References: <24563@unix.SRI.COM> Sender: news@hplb.hpl.hp.com (Usenet News Administrator) Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories, Bristol, UK. Lines: 76 In-Reply-To: hlavaty@CRVAX.Sri.Com's message of 21 May 91 16:43:36 GMT Nntp-Posting-Host: cdollin.hpl.hp.com hlavaty@CRVAX.Sri.Com says: Noooooooooooo! I totally disagree with this. Quantitative information must by definition be more valuable and reliable than qualitative information. Rubbish. There's nothing in the *definitions* of ``quantative'' and ``qualitative'' that makes the former more ``valuable'' or ``reliable'' than the latter. Not, at least, in the definitions I'm familar with. Whatever numbers make up the quantitative information are indisputable (assuming the data was gathered correctly) - they become a fact. There is one bag of coffee-bags on my desk. There are two mugs. This is indisputable, and a ``fact'' (until I go make coffee). But so what? What the numbers *mean* is usually still open to interpretation, but at least two or more people have a common reference point from which to discuss things. The same is true of qualitive information. The problem with qualitative information is that it is NOT reliable as soon as more than one person enters the discussion. I fear you are confusing ``quantative'' with ``objective'', and ``qualitative'' with ``subjective''. Where qualitative judgements really break down is when two people with different opinions view the same situation differently. Who's right? There's of the order of 10e23 atomes of hydrogen in a gramme of same. That's pretty quantative, right? Do you think that's a big number? Would everyone agree? [It isn't, of course. Almost all positive numbers integers are larger than that.] The advantage of metrics is that they facilitate a common ground for discussion between people and organizations. You may disagree with me what the number mean, but we now have a common reference point. If we disagree about what they *mean*, how do we have a common reference point? The real trick to metrics is really just to start measuring *something*. After trial and error you will arrive at "things" to track that will work for you and your organization Ah. You can express this pious hope quantatively, perhaps? (all of which are peculiar, IMHO). That particular use of ``peculiar'' comes over as a mild insult in British English ... :-) What you are after are "early warnings" of impending problems that allow you time to fix them up front - before they are problems. Very true. I would argue that someone with a lot of experience that isn't using metrics consciously is actually using them unconsciously (or intuitively). Evidence in support? [I'm not actually trying to rubbish metrics here, but the arguments quoted above are far too weak to defend them. Can't we do better?] -- Regards, Kers. | "You're better off not dreaming of the things to come; Caravan: | Dreams are always ending far too soon."