Luiz Esmiralha wrote: > On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 11:25:52 -0500, J. B. Rainsberger > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> >>>>You get what you measure. >>> >>>The sentence above implies that if you don't measure anything, you get >>>nothing at all? >> >>I think it rather means that if you don't actively measure anything, >>then you get whatever the person/team would naturally provide. It's like >>the study in Peopleware in which the team that finished its project >>earliest was the one not given a deadline. > > Interesting. Can you see any kind of measurement that doesn't affect > the measured subjects as radically like this?
I don't understand this question. > What if they don't know they are being measured? I'm not actually > suggesting doing it, but would that be an efficient way to provide > measurements and not disrupt the current work environment? > Or that would make measurements even more meaningless, since there > would be no feedback between measuremenst and subjects? On the contrary, if the subjects don't know they're being measured, then it is more likely that what we observe reflects reality. It would avoid the Hawthorn Effect -- the act of being measured causes one to take more care in their work, showing a short-term positive change no matter what happens. -- J. B. (Joe) Rainsberger Diaspar Software Services http://www.diasparsoftware.com Author, JUnit Recipes: Practical Methods for Programmer Testing To Post a message, send it to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ad-free courtesy of objectmentor.com Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/extremeprogramming/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
