[lifeisstillgood]

>>> Instead of traditional stand-ups, engineers log into their systems and provide a brief update by sending a short voice message.

(bit too negative - but basically i disagree)

You do not ask a human how the computer is doing. You see the working code. If the working code is running great, if not bad. But you don't ask the human. you ask the test suite.

I mean, I see a different end point for software orgs - I call it the "whole org test rig". Every part of a companies current processes is digitised (future changes and improvements are yet to be committed) but the sales people will pitch using software that tells them who to pitch to and when, the customer service agent is probably already a bit etc etc.

And when a whole org is "in code" then you can set up test environments - run sensitivity tests, try out new applications and new services and ensure the training is ready and ...

basically most management is co-ordination. And if you can just test then the co-ordination sits in the test rig

[im_down_w_otp]

We have a use case for some of our stuff that's not too dissimilar to part of what you're talking about here. One of our products is basically a trace-based verification tool that consumes a bunch of different kinds of telemetry from a bunch of different layers of a tech stack across a bunch of different devices and then leverages that data to do system-level testing. It turns out that it's not too hard to instrument the tools of business processes in a manner similar to how one might instrument embedded devices or REST APIs. That business process data can be written to our causal graph datastore like anything else and then be analyzed for fault-localization or used for verification just like machine telemetry from a rover, satellite, or robotaxi would be.