There's No Such Thing as Software Productivity (2012)
Claims that “there’s no such thing as software productivity” have reignited debate over whether programmer output can be meaningfully measured at all. Commenters generally agree that naive metrics like lines of code or tickets closed are misleading, but split on whether higher-level proxies such as business value, profit, customer satisfaction, or impact over time can serve as workable stand-ins. Many argue that software work resembles other creative or knowledge work, where context, quality, maintainability, and avoidance of future problems matter more than any simple scalar measure.
Definition of “software productivity”
- Many argue productivity is, in principle, just outputs/inputs (an economic ratio), so it must exist for software.
- Others say that for software, “output” is inherently fuzzy: is it code, features, solved problems, business value, or long‑term stability?
- Some see the article as mainly semantic: rejecting the word “productivity” to emphasize “solving problems” and reducing long‑term costs instead of “producing code.”
Can it be meaningfully measured?
- One camp: Yes, at least in aggregate or over long time frames. Examples: revenue per employee, completed projects per time, “shit_done/time_elapsed”.
- Another camp: Any non‑toy attempt runs into confounding factors (maintenance, correctness, compute cost, future extensibility), making comparisons unreliable or domain‑specific.
- Many distinguish between observing that some engineers outperform others vs. turning that into a robust, reproducible scalar metric.
Problems with simple metrics (especially LOC)
- Strong consensus that lines of code are a bad metric: more code often means more bugs, more maintenance, and lower real value.
- Deleting code or avoiding code can be higher value than adding it; code is often a liability, not an asset.
- Attempts to refine LOC with adds/deletes, tickets closed, or DB “tasks” still fail to normalize for difficulty, quality, or downstream impact.
Business value, money, and customers
- Several commenters say only business value or profit really matter; productivity must be evaluated via money.
- Others argue money is a crude proxy for usefulness; happy or “demanding” customers and long‑term value may diverge from short‑term profit.
- Debate spills into capitalism vs. alternatives and whether “money is the measure of usefulness.”
Teams, knowledge work, and impact
- Repeated point: metrics work better at the team/product level than for individuals; software is closer to research or art than factory work.
- Impact is viewed as the only truly meaningful metric, but many argue it is inherently unmeasurable beyond rough proxies.
- Goodhart’s law and perverse incentives (rewarding firefighting, visible artifacts, or short‑term gains) are recurring concerns.
- Some propose multidimensional dashboards (speed, quality, user impact, job satisfaction) used as managerial input rather than a single ranking number.