[blurker]

Using a metric like mean time to code change could incentivize brute forcing work. Developers who are aware of the metric may work unsustainable hours and that could lead to burnout. Also, they may try to cut corners on tests, reviews or documentation in order to ship more things faster.

I think that qualitative metrics like satisfaction and collaboration could be helpful, especially when combined with traditional metrics like mean time to merge a code change. Taking my previous example of overworking or cutting corners to achieve high numbers, a qualitative metric for something like satisfaction might indicate a problem where a work output metric wouldn't.

But I think that any combination of metrics will be an oversimplification that could lead to problems if they are the only thing that matters. I'm not sure where the balance lies. I like that metrics can offer an objective view of performance and make it easy to spot trends. But I am wary of them oversimplifying things and dehumanising the team.

[elpakal]

> Using a metric like mean time to code change could incentivize brute forcing work. Developers who are aware of the metric may work unsustainable hours and that could lead to burnout. Also, they may try to cut corners on tests, reviews or documentation in order to ship more things faster.

I think this depends on how strongly leadership/management tries to use this metric to change behavior, but in a company like mine where we have a lot of business dependencies, contracts etc which rely on predictions of throughput, this is an important metric for us to predict timelines. It's not used against a team or platform and it is primarily used internally by management and not so much engineering teams which I think is the right way to use it.

[sixstringtheory]

> It's not used against a team or platform and it is primarily used internally by management and not so much engineering teams which I think is the right way to use it.

Absolutely. It’s the old descriptive vs normative saw. We should be very interested in measuring how productive we are. But how do we really know how productive we should be?

I think trying to answer that is hard to impossible for a developer, because you can always automate or abstract further, but the cost to do so marginally increases and you probably won’t know the full cost until it’s already realized, at which point, requirement and prediction are obviated.

I know I’ve had my fair share of negative experiences with a scrum team that wanted ever faster velocity and used burndown charts as a stick with no carrot in sight.

[blurker]

That makes sense to me. Then in your situation, assuming you need those metrics and they are helpful, it may be helpful to add a metric like "satisfaction" or something that could counterbalance the negative effects that the other metrics could have.

I could see how a satisfaction metric would counterbalance a work output metric. The team will probably feel less satisfied if they know that corners are cut or if they are having to work unsustainably.