A recent blog post by @task's CTO Nate Bowler, Software Engineering Management, Bug Week, and Giving Away Minivans, generated some discussion regarding Deming's aversion to incentives and how @task applies incentives to the software development process. I think everyone can agree with Nate when he suggests that "creating meaningful performance metrics for a software engineering team is difficult."I don't plan on going into all 14 of Deming's Key Principles here, but there's some pretty good background on Deming and his list of key principles on Wikipedia for those unfamiliar with them. Suffice it to say, he has been credited with a significant contribution to helping Japanese manufacturing improve the quality of their products and their reputation in the world.
Of Deming's list of 14, I think the following apply to the current discussion:
#10—"Eliminate slogans, exhortations, and targets for the work force asking for zero defects and new levels of productivity." Deming argued that this only created adversarial relationships because the root cause of poor quality belongs to the system, not to the workforce. I must admit that in theory, I agree with Deming—but an empowered workforce, with the objective of zero defects, is the way to fix a broken system. That being said, the key here is a workforce empowered to correct a flawed process.
#11a—"Eliminate work standards (quotas) on the factory floor. Substitute leadership." In the sense that arbitrary quotas and artificially created deadlines hurt morale and inhibit workforce productivity, I agree with Deming. Does that mean that organizations should abandon metrics altogether? I don't think so. Athletes successfully use benchmarks and performance objectives to improve performance—the key is to keep the definitions of success consistent. Oh, there is no substitute for effective leadership.
#11b—"Eliminate management by objective. Eliminate management by numbers, numerical goals. Substitute leadership." In a world without stakeholders, executive boards, and shareholders, objectives might not matter—unfortunately, for most organizations, managing and executing to objectives is important. Once again, the key here is to manage those objectives that make sense and not create arbitrary objectives that do nothing but force people to run around in circles.
#11a—"Eliminate work standards (quotas) on the factory floor. Substitute leadership." In the sense that arbitrary quotas and artificially created deadlines hurt morale and inhibit workforce productivity, I agree with Deming. Does that mean that organizations should abandon metrics altogether? I don't think so. Athletes successfully use benchmarks and performance objectives to improve performance—the key is to keep the definitions of success consistent. Oh, there is no substitute for effective leadership.
#11b—"Eliminate management by objective. Eliminate management by numbers, numerical goals. Substitute leadership." In a world without stakeholders, executive boards, and shareholders, objectives might not matter—unfortunately, for most organizations, managing and executing to objectives is important. Once again, the key here is to manage those objectives that make sense and not create arbitrary objectives that do nothing but force people to run around in circles.
Fortunately, Deming's philosophy offers a number of valuable manufacturing work management best practices that can be embraced by any organization engaged in project based work. However, because I am in no way a purist, I tend to embrace those ideas that are likely to contribute positively to the project management process, and ignore those that might not. After all, my reading of Deming leads me to believe that he was not directly addressing the project management process, but rather the manufacturing process—similar, but not the same.
Have I missed the point? Feel free to weigh in with your opinion.
Posted on: March 31, 2010 10:27 AM |
Permalink
