[reactordev]

Not the author but I suspect something like this:

Assign engineer 4 stories due this sprint. After a few days, 1 story is done. After a few more 2 more are done. Before the end of the sprint, the last story is done. All 4 stories are demonstrable. All 4 stories pass peer review. Engineer is even around for brainstorm sessions and ceremonies.

Some places go a lot further than this but this is my personal bar as a manager. That you're in standup, that you're doing the work, and that the work doesn't require rework and is accepted by the team.

[erhserhdfd]

Yeah I see your point. A few thoughts:

1. This assumes that that a someone can/will usually accurately scope 4 stories, with proper requirements, and clear peer review standards. In practice, this can be hard to do and inconsistent.

2. If someone falls behind on their assigned story quota, how would a manager know whether that is because the story didn't meet the criteria in item 1, or because the person isn't putting in sufficient effort because of OE or other commitments? How I typically see this play out is most people assume that its not related to effort and try to work with the employee to push back deadlines and better refine the story.

[coldtea]

>2. If someone falls behind on their assigned story quota, how would a manager know whether that is because the story didn't meet the criteria in item 1, or because the person isn't putting in sufficient effort because of OE or other commitments?

They could expect to know the reason this happened (e.g. prerequisite not ready, this design issue is not solvable so we're testing alternatives, etc.).

And if it happens often, they can always fire the person.

To return your own question: "If someone falls behind on their assigned story quota, how would a manager know whether that is because the story didn't meet the criteria in item 1, or because the person isn't putting in sufficient effort?"

Whether that's because they just slack off, or because they don't have the skills so everything takes extra time even though they work hard, or because of "OE or other commitments" is irrelevant, isn't it?

Besides, it is not just "other employment" that would have such a concern. The same is true for e.g. trying to build a personal startup MVP on your spare time or building a simpler passive income side-gig, both things which HN crowd loves, and which employees should totally be allowed to have (and lots of IT success stories wouldn't be possible if they weren't).

[reactordev]

>"1. This assumes that that a someone can/will usually accurately scope 4 stories, with proper requirements, and clear peer review standards. In practice, this can be hard to do and inconsistent."

I highly suggest you focus on this rather than "are they doing the work?". Having accurate estimates and proper scoping of stories is vital to predicting releases and maintaining a road map. If you feel your org is lacking in this, I would focus on this first. As engineers, we need to scope multiple things into the story. Development, Testing, Deployment needs, Documentation. It's not just a "ticket" to do "x". Story points are complexity metrics. Not man hours. Don't feel like you need to complete Y story points to be effective. Story points are relative. Which brings me to your second point.

>"2. If someone falls behind on their assigned story quota, how would a manager know whether that is because the story didn't meet the criteria in item 1, or because the person isn't putting in sufficient effort because of OE or other commitments?"

Quota is why you fail. There isn't a quota. There isn't a set number of stories a person should do. Only what they are capable of. Also, one 8 point story is probably worth more business value than eight 1 point stories. Not always, but usually.

You can measure an individual's contribution to velocity, you can measure an individual's number of stories completed. However, neither of these are metrics of whether that individual is providing business value.

To measure whether an engineer is pulling their weight, talk to the other members of the team about work deliverables. You'll know pretty soon whether or not that individual is supporting the team (and thus may have lower story point totals) or is just absent from the discussions.

You can NOT justify firing someone simply because they have another job, so long as it doesn't interfere with their duties or is during the same hours if hourly. At least not in the USA. There is no law against moonlighting so long as there isn't a conflict of interest.

I mean, you can exercise at-will employment and just fire them because you feel like it, but your reputation will tank.

I know employers want to trap their employees into working just 1 job, 1 career, for 50 years, with no strings attached, and no pension to offer, but the reality is many of us have to work two or more jobs because we can't afford our mortgage or need to pay off those predatory student loans we were promised would be eliminated but weren't.

So here's my take. If you suspect someone is working more than one job, be an adult and have a 1:1 and ask them about it. Ask them what you can do for them to have them commit to only working for you. If you are offended that they dare work two jobs when you believe the company is providing more than enough, I bet you don't have a 7% mortgage.

Instead of leading with the stick, try the carrot. Empathy will go a long way.