Linked by snydeq on Thu 17th Nov 2011 22:47 UTC
General Development Fatal Exception's Neil McAllister discusses why code analysis and similar metrics provide little insight into what really makes an effective software development team, in the wake of a new scorecard system employed at IBM. "Code metrics are fine if all you care about is raw code production. But what happens to all that code once it's written? Do you just ship it and move on? Hardly - in fact, many developers spend far more of their time maintaining code than adding to it. Do your metrics take into account time spent refactoring or documenting existing code? Is it even possible to devise metrics for these activities?" McAllister writes, "Are developers who take time to train and mentor other teams about the latest code changes considered less productive than ones who stay heads-down at their desks and never reach out to their peers? How about teams that take time at the beginning of a project to coordinate with other teams for code reuse, versus those who charge ahead blindly? Can any automated tool measure these kinds of best practices?"
Thread beginning with comment 497656
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: obsession with data
by Yamin on Fri 18th Nov 2011 21:16 UTC in reply to "RE: obsession with data"
Member since:

Those aren't proper training paths because:

1. They are not mandatory. So you will never end up with a professional culture as it can always be undercut by untrained people just good enough to appear to do the immediate job.
2. They do no include a significant on the job mentorship component. It is not just 'can you write code'. But can you communicate, handle clients, ethics, behave yourself as a professional... formal passing on of real life practice and methods built into the profession

If anything the formal residency style mentorship is significantly more important than any educational credential.

Reply Parent Score: 2