Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!ogicse!pdxgate!eecs!warren
From: warren@eecs.cs.pdx.edu (Warren Harrison)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: Re:  use of metrics
Message-ID: <2832@pdxgate.UUCP>
Date: 7 Jun 91 19:43:34 GMT
References: <795@tivoli.UUCP> <35121@mimsy.umd.edu> <4794.284cfad3@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> <35346@mimsy.umd.edu>
Sender: news@pdxgate.UUCP
Reply-To: warren@eecs.UUCP (Warren Harrison)
Distribution: na
Organization: Portland State University, Portland, OR
Lines: 43

In article <35346@mimsy.umd.edu> cml@cs.umd.edu (Christopher Lott) writes:
>In article <4794.284cfad3@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (George X. Kambic, Allen-Bradley Inc.) writes:
>>Can you use metrics to determine if a person needs training?
>
>>>I write:
>>> 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. 
>>Mr Kambic writes:
>>How does the manager determine that in the first place?
>
>You're leading me down a path that I can't quite see.  

I think what George Kambic is getting at is that the manager is using
an implicit measurement system when evaluating his/her staff. You yourself
have just created an implied measurement system that (somehow) assigns
programmers into two classes: "stellar performers" and "not so hot" (there's
probably an "in between" there too). Sadly, implicit measurement systems
are just as easily confounded as explicit ones - my wife used to work for
a manager who thought that a person's committment to the company and
performance was a function of how much overtime they put in. Even though
she consistently outperformed her colleagues (they were mainly retrained
accountants and she had both a BS and MS in Computer Science and several
years of professional experience), when raise time came around, guess what.
She never missed a deadline, but likewise refused to work weekends and
evenings to clean up other people's mistakes.

Had the manager looked at virtually any other explicit metric - number of
functions completed, lines of code written, etc. her performance would
have been obvious. At the same time, much of the deadwood she was expected to
support would have been out in a flash. 

At least if your manager makes his/her metric explicit you can (a) either
convince him it's no good, (b) work to it, or (c) refuse to work for him
or the company. With an implicit metric you can end up working for quite a
while before you find out that you're not doing the right things.

Warren

==========================================================================
Warren Harrison                                          warren@cs.pdx.edu
Center for Software Quality Research                          503/725-3108
Portland State University/CMPS