> If you use “manufacturing metrics,” you are trying to turn software development into an assembly line operation, constantly churning out useless features without considering whether or not they are delivering value.
There’s too much assumption here but I couldn’t put my finger on how to express it. I believe it’s an assumption that the metaphor is constant rather than it shifting from phase to phase.
Think not knowing what to build: that’s better expressed by OODA looping on a subject or experimentation concepts. When you have a well known need that’s effectively scoped, that’s where manufacturing can be effective as the cognitive frame.
That’s all to say we quickly shift from mental model to model often and with ease. None guarantee quality or stability (both of which are also inherently metaphors) but some are more effective at human to human communication than others.
Flow metrics are not manufacturing metrics
> If you use “manufacturing metrics,” you are trying to turn software development into an assembly line operation, constantly churning out useless features without considering whether or not they are delivering value.
There’s too much assumption here but I couldn’t put my finger on how to express it. I believe it’s an assumption that the metaphor is constant rather than it shifting from phase to phase.
Think not knowing what to build: that’s better expressed by OODA looping on a subject or experimentation concepts. When you have a well known need that’s effectively scoped, that’s where manufacturing can be effective as the cognitive frame.
That’s all to say we quickly shift from mental model to model often and with ease. None guarantee quality or stability (both of which are also inherently metaphors) but some are more effective at human to human communication than others.