Some metrics are temporal. If your team is handed a code base that contains 20% duplicated code, you may wish to measure a reduction in duplicated code until its irrelevant.
Same for the # of unit tests, class count, LOC, whatever...
If a metric remains useful over a long period of time, so be it. If not, just as well.
I would think that if a group had a history of unit tests, automated source analyzers, low bug counts, successful at meeting deadlines, AND worked w/ execs on this, it would be easier to challenge out-sourcing. Yes, you're paid big bucks, but does the competition have data that stacks up well with ours? Now the execs have to add in the cost of not having that history/work processes or having to re-create it themselves... This quickly becomes a high-risk proposition. I think most execs are looking for stability in their organizations, not wildcards.
The lack of metrics and the ability to equate them to our business value is our own fault.
Flat View: This topic has 50 replies
on 51 pages
[
«
|
111213141516171819
|
»
]
Previous Topic
