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 497657
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

"And a champion team always beats a team of champions."

No one here would argue that a good team is essential. A team of champions might not be better than a well oiled team.

I really don't see the relevance of what you say in relation to the origin

This is why you include a broad spectrum of people to survey (Tests, product managers, fellow developers..) You will get a pretty good grasp of what makes the best team. You don't just measure how good a developer is by how quickly he can solve some technical problem.

Good management, and I have worked for some good managers, understand this and do build great teams.

Reply Parent Score: 2