Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!tivoli!alan From: alan@tivoli.UUCP (Alan R. Weiss) Newsgroups: comp.software-eng Subject: Re: use of metrics (was: Re: bridge building and discipline) Message-ID: <801@tivoli.UUCP> Date: 5 Jun 91 16:01:08 GMT References: <24527@unix.SRI.COM> <4707.284370a9@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> <795@tivoli.UUCP> <35121@mimsy.umd.edu> Reply-To: alan@tivoli.UUCP (Alan R. Weiss) Distribution: na Organization: Tivoli Systems Inc., Austin, TX Lines: 86 In article <35121@mimsy.umd.edu> cml@cs.umd.edu (Christopher Lott) writes: > >In some-article somebody (Kambic|hlavaty|Showalter) writes: >> .... >> a system where the metrics person is NOT the management chain - in fact, >> it is forbidden for the metrics person to EVER reveal a specific name to a >> management person. The reason is exactly as you describe - once anyone got >> burned because of the metric data, the accuracy ... of data is shot > >In article <795@tivoli.UUCP> alan@tivoli.UUCP (Alan R. Weiss) writes: >>Watts Humphrey is a very bright person, but its clear .... that >>Watts never had to answer to the board of directors, stockholders, >>or customers. > >I am working with a large set of data on developments right now, and >am struggling with the analysis. The data isn't perfect, but my more >experienced colleagues tell me that this data (from NASA, btw) is so >much better than data sets at other institutions that I should just be happy. >(don't worry, be hap...., um, sorry.) Quality of the data you collect is >absolutely vital - or else you'll find yourself analyzing just plain garbage. This is true. Mom & Apple pie. I don't understand your merging of the Kambic | Hlavaty | Showalter posting with my own. They are related, but address different ends of the problem. What gives? >The argument I'd like to make is that if you're going to put 2-5% of your >project resources into data collection and validation, you better not shoot >yourself in the foot right off by EVER using your metrics to evaluate your >workers. (Here you might read ``punish'' for ``evaluate.'') Ah, this addresses the Kambic | Hlavaty | Showalter point. >It's naive to think that a group manager doesn't know already who are >the stellar performers and who are already not so hot -- metrics, if they >are given, will only confirm this knowledge. The point is that the metrics >must NEVER be used as evaluatory tools FOR PEOPLE. This is the idea that >management has to buy into (to use b-world jargon) before a metrics program >can succeed. You want to use metrics to evaluate your processes and products, >not your personnel. This has been said many times. We all agree on this. >I also don't like Mr Weiss's statement that Mr Humphrey never had to answer >to stockholders et al. Clearly the metrics person must justify that there >will be some return on the metrics investment, o/w there's no point. >The payback comes in the form of better awareness of your problem areas and >in the eventual improvement in the way your shop does business. You can >leave evaluations of personnel completely out of the picture - and should. > >chris... >-- >Christopher Lott \/ Dept of Comp Sci, Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 > cml@cs.umd.edu /\ 4122 AV Williams Bldg 301 405-2721 Now we get to the part that concerns me. Look, I'm sorry if I offended your sense of propriety or tarnished a religious icon :-) [grin] but the fact of the matter is this: the SEI, which Watts heads, focuses on long-term quality improvements. My point, which you have NOT addressed, is that business people (you know, the ROI-folks) are like Captain James T. Kirk: "Dammit, Bones, I want answers *now*!." If you can't produce short-term improvements, you're probably in trouble ('specially if your guardian angel gets re-orged or early-retired!). Don't misunderstand me: I LIKE the SEI, and I wish them well. But, IMHO and experience they need to handle the business case better, and they need to address the hellaciously short product life cycles before they get widespread adoption in the software biz. As Joe Friday says, "just the facts." Secondly, I disagree: like Heisenburg, the mere act of setting up a metrics program can have an impact on total quality (see the Hawthorn Effect, GE, 1924). So there IS A POINT in setting up such a program. Or, in more modern management theory terms, Tom Peters puts it this way: "try it , break it, fix it, repeat." _______________________________________________________________________ Alan R. Weiss TIVOLI Systems, Inc. E-mail: alan@tivoli.com 6034 West Courtyard Drive, E-mail: alan@whitney.tivoli.com Suite 210 Voice : (512) 794-9070 Austin, Texas USA 78730 Fax : (512) 794-0623 _______________________________________________________________________