Then you can ask yourself, how would you help make an organization full of collaborative writers more productive? Would you measure their lines per day? Or would you spend your effort trying to make sure they like and understand each other?
Then you can ask yourself, how would you help make an organization full of collaborative writers more productive? Would you measure their lines per day? Or would you spend your effort trying to make sure they like and understand each other?
In my domain (developing research software for small-scale scientific projects) more lines of code rarely correlates with more functional/readable/trustworthy software. Instead I frequently find myself thinking: If I had more time I would have written less code!
If I was managing an organization full of book writers then I very well might measure number of lines per day. I've heard people discuss (on podcasts) their process to writing their book and it distills down to the commitment to write N number of lines per day until the book is complete.
But is this a good metric or just Goodhart's? Let's say you're writing a technical book. How do you measure the "best" book? What is best? Number of sales just correlates and can happen just because a big school picks up a book and other schools copy. But that doesn't mean it is good.
> If I was managing an organization full of book writers then I very well might measure number of lines per day.
Please don't manage anyone. We don't need any more Dickens style books, and especially not code.
Who is 'we'? That is certainly not how I measure a book.
Not # books sold = # of copies of software sold?