There’s a post from Joel O’Software regarding measuring performance and productivity. He’s saying some good stuff about how these metrics don’t work, but I’d like to balance it with a few further words in favour of metrics generally. Individual productivity metrics don’t work, but some metrics are still useful, including team metrics which you might class as productivity-related.
- Individual productivity metrics don’t work.
- Productivity-like metrics are still useful…
- …but they don’t tell the whole story
Individual productivity metrics don’t work
Joel O’S states that if you incentivise people by any system, there are always opportunities to game that system. My own experience here is in a previous company where we incentivised developers by how much client-billable time they clocked up. Unfortunately it meant that the developers flatly refused to do any work on our internal systems. We developed internal account codes to deal with that, but it just meant that our incentivisation scheme was broken as a result. Joel has other examples, and Martin Fowler discusses the topic similarly.
Productivity-like metrics are still useful…
Agile development people measure something called “velocity”. It measures the amount of work delivered in an iteration, and as such might be called a measurement of productivity. But there are a couple of crucial differences to measuring things such as lines of code, or function points:
- Velocity is a measurement of the team, not an individual.
- It’s used for future capacity planning, not rewarding past progress.
Velocity can also be used in combination with looking at future deadlines to produce burndown charts and so allow you to make tactical adjustments accordingly. Furthermore, a dip in any of these numbers can highlight that something’s going a bit wrong and some action needs to be taken. But that tells you something about the process, not the individuals.
The kick-off point for Joel’s most recent essay on the subject is a buzzword-ridden (and just clunkily-worded) cold-call e-mail from a consultant:
Our team is conducting a benchmarking effort to gather an outside-in view on development performance metrics and best practice approaches to issues of process and organization from companies involved in a variety of software development (and systems integration).
It’s a trifle unfair to criticise the consultant for looking at performance metrics, but one has to be careful about what they’re going to be used for.
…but they don’t tell the whole story
A confession. We track one particular metric here in the development team at Guardian Unlimited. And a few days ago we recorded our worst ever figure for this metric since we started measuring it. You could say we had our least productive month ever. You could. But were my management peers in GU unhappy? Was there retribution? No, there was not. In fact there was much popping of champagne corks here, because we all understand that progress isn’t measured by single numbers alone. The celebrations were due to the fact that, with great effort from writers, subs, commercial staff, sponsors, strategists and other technologists we had just launched
- a refreshed and reorganised Arts site,
- a brand new Arts blog,
- our first ever dedicated Music site
- with its own Music blog,
- and an exclusive video,
- and we still made time to help our colleagues over at Guardian Weekly launch the new Guardian Abroad site.
A bad month then? Not by a long shot. The numbers do tell us something. They tell me there was a lot of unexpected last-minute running around, and I’ve no doubt we can do things better the next time. It’s something I’ve got to address. But let’s not flog ourselves too much over it — success is about more than just numbers.