[sah2ed]

The book mentions "Percentage of tickets closed" as a metric by which engineering should be evaluated, which IMO is incredibly short-sighted.

The Google Doc has all editing disabled at the moment, but does anyone know if the author would welcome improvements to the text?

[asafira]

THey mention a more nuanced metric further down --- do you still feel it's a poor metric?

[sah2ed]

Would you mind quoting the relevant bit? I'm on mobile at the moment.

My problem with including it at all is that, as he said in a preceding chapter, he is in a unique position to shoot down myths that technical founders believe about VCs and the converse, so the book presents a great opportunity to do the same about the myth of closed tickets as an engineering metric, particularly since it is largely well-written and will reach a much wider audience than his coaching may permit.

[koverda]

I believe this is the relevant bit:

" As we learn from Andy Grove, former Intel CEO and author of the book High Output Management, it is also important to define and track counter-metrics to provide necessary context, because metrics are sometimes optimized to a fault.

For example, engineering tickets will vary in importance, so if your engineers have closed the critical tickets, they’re doing better than if they close most tickets but only the easiest ones. Similarly, if the half of candidates that accept your job offers are less skilled than the half that decline, then you’re doing worse than the raw percentage indicates. "