Case Study — Technology Leadership
Tech Health Scoring
Challenge
A leading security software company's CTO needed a scalable way to see whether engineering teams were actually living up to the company's engineering strategy — measured quarterly, not guessed at once a year — and a defensible basis for setting the next quarter's OKR targets.
Approach
Snowberry designed a Tech Promoter Score (TPS) system — analogous to NPS — where each product team self-assessed quarterly against 10 named engineering strategy dimensions, from "build it well, run it well" to security and architecture choices. Scores were converted to a 0–100 scale per product area and tracked over time.
- Engineering strategy The CTO sets the vision and the strategic pillars engineering should build toward.
- Framework design Snowberry maps scoring criteria to each strategy dimension.
- Team workshops Every product team meets quarterly to self-assess against the framework.
- Scoring Per-dimension ratings convert into a single 0-100 Tech Promoter Score.
- Aggregate view The CTO gets a cross-team dashboard of scores, trended over time.
- OKR targets Scores set next quarter's technical health targets.
- Repeat The cycle runs again next quarter — CTO-initiated, team-driven.
Results
Quarterly tracking across 7 product areas over 6 quarters produced measurable progress and a shared language for technical quality across the organisation — Forge, for example, rose from 65 to 87.
| Product area | Q4 2024 | Q1 2025 | Q2 2025 | Q3 2025 | Q4 2025 | Q1 2026 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scout | 35 | 46 | 46 | 50 | 55 | 63 |
| Sentry | 19 | 31 | 32 | 37 | 29 | 33 |
| Commons | 28 | 30 | 38 | 38 | 23 | 23 |
| Forge | 65 | 71 | 72 | 74 | 74 | 87 |
| Hive | 18 | 18 | 20 | 51 | 51 | 51 |
| Depot | 44 | 61 | 61 | 61 | 61 | 61 |
| Flow | 99 | 96 | 95 | 97 | 91 | 91 |
| Average | 44 | 50 | 52 | 58 | 55 | 58 |
Anonymised, quarterly Tech Promoter Score data from a real engagement. Company and product names withheld.
Strategy matrix
Latest Tech Promoter Score by product area — Q1 2026
- Scout 63 Medium
- Sentry 33 Low
- Commons 23 Low
- Forge 87 High
- Hive 51 Medium
- Depot 61 Medium
- Flow 91 High
The 10 engineering strategy dimensions behind the score — open one to see the checklist a team actually answers
Depth varies by dimension — these are the questions as the organisation actually uses them.
- Build it well, run it well Code quality and operational ownership are one discipline, not two.
7 questions
- We have wanted observability, logging, monitoring
- We can independently deploy it to production
- Autoscaling enabled?
- Lead Time for Changes
- Deployment Frequency
- Failure Rate
- Mean Time to Restore Services
- A set of few, intentional tools Deliberate technology choices over a sprawl of one-off frameworks.
2 questions
- Do we have any unwanted technologies?
- Have alternative (off the shelf or open-source) solutions been considered?
- AWS Native over Cloud Native Lean on managed platform primitives instead of reinventing infrastructure.
1 question
- Are we using AWS alternatives when available and suitable?
- Democratize the data Data is accessible and usable across teams, not siloed behind one owner.
2 questions
- Is the data available to be consumed by others?
- Can the data be understood by the consumer?
- Event-driven architecture Systems react to events rather than polling or tight coupling.
4 questions
- Are events published?
- Are we publishing events that tell the world what we are doing (transparency)?
- Do the events tell the story of the producer's domain?
- Are event schemas available for consumers?
- Composable building blocks Shared, reusable components over bespoke solutions per team.
3 questions
- Does the solution have clearly defined inputs and outputs?
- Is the solution documented in a way that a new engineer can get an overview of the solution?
- Does the solution have a clear purpose, that can be understood by developers?
- Secure Security is a design constraint from the start, not a later audit.
9 questions
- Requirement for all services: we have enabled m2m authentication
- Are we following our secure engineering policy?
- Have we done a security assessment of the solution?
- We are using recommended deployment modules
- Have we done a risk assessment of the solution, at the frequency specified in our secure system development policy?
- Are databases configured in accordance with policy?
- Are we patching the system according to the secure development policy?
- Is data access following least-privilege principle?
- Are we compliant with our audit logging principles?
- Each product has a clear contract with the outside world Consumers can rely on a stable, discoverable interface without asking the owning team.
3 questions
- Is the product's interface (API, events, schema) explicitly versioned?
- Is a breaking change communicated to consumers before it ships?
- Can a consumer discover the contract without asking the owning team?
- Knowledge level in team The team understands the systems it runs, not just the code it wrote.
2 questions
- Multiple members of the team are able to make changes in the system and deploy them
- Multiple members of the team understand the system and how it impacts the outside world
- Well-defined metrics that show we are successful Success is measured against a defined product metric, not assumed.
1 question
- Do we have product metrics defined to tell if the solution is performing according to its purpose?
Want to bring structured tech health tracking to your organisation? Let's talk.
Get in touch