<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="http://blogs.msdn.com/utility/FeedStylesheets/rss.xsl" media="screen"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"><channel><title>The power of workflow visibility...</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/kmorrill/archive/2006/07/10/661663.aspx</link><description>I read an interesting article this morning: Microsoft Working Through Windows Vista Bugs TechWeb- July 10, 2006 A Windows developer and consultant who analyzed a database of reported Windows Vista bugs says Microsoft has been quickly addressing bugs as</description><dc:language>en-US</dc:language><generator>CommunityServer 2.1 SP1 (Build: 61025.2)</generator><item><title>re: The power of workflow visibility...</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/kmorrill/archive/2006/07/10/661663.aspx#662312</link><pubDate>Tue, 11 Jul 2006 16:42:06 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:662312</guid><dc:creator>PhilipR</dc:creator><description>There's a possible big downside to this data transparency, though - the more people look at the reports, the more likely people are to optimize what they do to make the reports look good. &lt;BR&gt;&lt;BR&gt;In this case, it's great that the bugs are quickly addressed - but are they adressed correctly, or are people trying to close them quickly to make the reports look good? If many beta testers complain that bugs are being closed that should not be with no comments, &amp;nbsp;then you're seeing proof in action that performance metrics is a tricky beast.</description></item></channel></rss>