What could Net Promoter Score tell us if we apply it differently?
I’ve thought a lot about how to measure development outcomes, but never been satisfied with my answers. I think I may have a bit more clarity thanks to a new perspective.
Only measuring total defects could incentivize misreporting. How could we measure defects in a way that aligns incentives with desired outcomes? I don’t have a sure answer, but here are some thoughts.
A previous post got me thinking about how principles can be measured and what value such measures could provide.
My test types diagram sparked concern that mature process focuses on repeated measured improvement, not specific techniques. This is right, but I don’t see the conflict. Tests are a kind of measure, and the diagram identifies common tests (measures) certain actors leverage to meet larger goals. This raises the question, what do the different kinds of tests measure? Consequently, what do they tell us about our system?
I recently put together that multiple verification (the quality technique) is effectively the same and as governance techniques. It’s about managing the level of trust and risk we accept from individual contributors.