One of my 7 hours of meetings today was what's called a “Testing Symposium”.  I was leading a discussion on test scheduling hoping to get some more valuable feedback on my post as well as hearing some other perspectives from around Microsoft.  I'm came away a little disappointed.  Which leads me to...

There is no set of statistics that can be used to determine who is an excellent employee.  Sure, you could find a set to tell you who the bad employees are.  You might even figure out what measurements you could use to separate out the average employees, but it's mostly intangibles that take people from good to great.  You know who these people are.  Which leads me to...

I'll be spending 6 hours tomorrow with my fellow test leads working to rank all of the testers on our team.  I can't find it, but there is a great Dilbert that proves Scott Adams has been in one of these meetings.  Dilbert asks a co-worker where the bosses are.  It's explained to him that the bosses are off at a meeting where they each defend the performance of their reports in order to rank them all.  Dilbert, of course, is worried.

It speaks to some of the futility of the process in which each “boss”, goaled partially on how well their employees are doing, is locked into tit for tat discussions of accomplishment X vs accomplishments Y,Z and Q.  My goals include minimizing this tit for tat and trying to represent and accurate picture of performances/customer impact.

In the final frame the boss essentially denies he even knows “Who this Dilbert guy is anyway.”