The futility of developer productivity metrics

Code analysis and similar metrics provide little insight into what really makes an effective software development team

1 2 Page 2
Page 2 of 2

Similarly, no development team exists in a vacuum. Are developers who take time to train and mentor other teams about the latest code changes considered less productive than ones who stay heads-down at their desks and never reach out to their peers? How about teams that take time at the beginning of a project to coordinate with other teams for code reuse, versus those who charge ahead blindly? Can any automated tool measure these kinds of best practices?

It's also important to recognize that any new code can have lasting side effects, both good and bad. A piece of code might be objectively "high quality" yet still cause problems in the long term. The code might be difficult for other developers to understand, reuse, or interface with. It might require extensive, unforeseen changes in other sections of the code base. It might place additional demands on the IT and operations staff who maintain the running application. Again, it's far easier to measure such things by intuitive methods rather than quantitative ones.

And can metrics account for productivity sinks related to unforeseen circumstances? What about code that grows longer and ever more convoluted due to scope creep -- how is productivity measured then? What about code that is functional, high-quality, and delivered on time, but doesn't do what it's supposed to do because of simple miscommunication -- who should be penalized? How well do the metrics account for delays due to budget shortfalls, bugs in tools or platforms, unmet dependencies from other groups, or dysfunctional processes?

Management, not metrics
All of these conditions and activities are of vital importance to the success of any software project, code quality notwithstanding. What's more, they have a direct impact on a developer's self-worth and job satisfaction -- areas where productivity metrics based on source code analysis fail utterly.

IBM claims its metrics aren't used punitively. Howard describes IBM as "a continuous learning environment," where low productivity scores are a signal to provide more training, rather than penalize individual developers. Yet he also describes IBM developers as people who want to be known as "the greatest on planet Earth" and says IBM's system allows them to "walk around with a scorecard" -- suggesting a locker-room atmosphere that's sure to alienate employees who don't view their work in such competitive terms.

Perhaps more telling, Howard says IBM's scoring system "has really wrapped our worldwide community together in a way that we didn't anticipate." For a global company like IBM, which maintains a massive workforce both at home and offshore, with employees coming from multiple cultures, languages, backgrounds, and work environments, maybe it does make sense to try to reduce developers to a few quantifiable traits (salary, no doubt, being an important one).

For most other companies, however, it might be best simply to forget about the idea of measuring developer productivity and rely instead on tried and true methods. That's right: A highly effective, productive developer workforce is often the result of high-quality, effective management. Unfortunately, nobody has developed a metric for that yet. Coincidence?

This article, "The futility of developer productivity metrics," originally appeared at InfoWorld.com. Read more of Neil McAllister's Fatal Exception blog and follow the latest news in programming at InfoWorld.com. For the latest business technology news, follow InfoWorld.com on Twitter.

1 2 Page 2
Page 2 of 2