studies show a clear trend – output is up (more code, more commits, bigger diffs), but outcomes don’t reflect that trend. If anything, the average team is taking longer to ship worse software
studies show a clear trend – output is up (more code, more commits, bigger diffs), but outcomes don’t reflect that trend. If anything, the average team is taking longer to ship worse software
Has management known that?
A lot of problems seem to be downstream from “management are idiots and assholes”
At any minimally competent company they are aware.
However my company mostly has former engineers as engineering managers.
I’m sure there were pockets but it legitimately seemed like that dragon had been slain until recently. Trying to assign more meaning to scrum points has been in vogue for a while though.
My team assigns both hours and points to tasks. I’ve never seen the points used for anything but they still spend time on it.
That’s… an interesting approach.
That battle is perpetual. Lazy management sees a number that resembles a statistic, and try to use it as an easy metric for stuff it doesn’t represent. Points do aggregate into velocity, which is worth measuring. But on their own, points are a proxy for estimation in $SPRINT_LENGTH days. The way to manage up is to keep making it clear that the smallest unit of estimation in Agile is the sprint length; points are used to subdivide that but only to ensure that the sprint itself is not overloaded and thus an accurate estimate.
(story points)