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 8 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.

  1. Engineering strategy The CTO sets the vision and the strategic pillars engineering should build toward.
  2. Framework design Snowberry maps scoring criteria to each strategy dimension.
  3. Team workshops Every product team meets quarterly to self-assess against the framework.
  4. Scoring Per-dimension ratings convert into a single 0-100 Tech Promoter Score.
  5. Aggregate view The CTO gets a cross-team dashboard of scores, trended over time.
  6. OKR targets Scores set next quarter's technical health targets.
  7. 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.

0255075100Q4 2024Q1 2025Q2 2025Q3 2025Q4 2025Q1 2026Scout · Q4 2024: 35Scout · Q1 2025: 46Scout · Q2 2025: 46Scout · Q3 2025: 50Scout · Q4 2025: 55Scout · Q1 2026: 63Sentry · Q4 2024: 19Sentry · Q1 2025: 31Sentry · Q2 2025: 32Sentry · Q3 2025: 37Sentry · Q4 2025: 29Sentry · Q1 2026: 33Commons · Q4 2024: 28Commons · Q1 2025: 30Commons · Q2 2025: 38Commons · Q3 2025: 38Commons · Q4 2025: 23Commons · Q1 2026: 23Forge · Q4 2024: 65Forge · Q1 2025: 71Forge · Q2 2025: 72Forge · Q3 2025: 74Forge · Q4 2025: 74Forge · Q1 2026: 87Hive · Q4 2024: 18Hive · Q1 2025: 18Hive · Q2 2025: 20Hive · Q3 2025: 51Hive · Q4 2025: 51Hive · Q1 2026: 51Depot · Q4 2024: 44Depot · Q1 2025: 61Depot · Q2 2025: 61Depot · Q3 2025: 61Depot · Q4 2025: 61Depot · Q1 2026: 61Flow · Q4 2024: 99Flow · Q1 2025: 96Flow · Q2 2025: 95Flow · Q3 2025: 97Flow · Q4 2025: 91Flow · Q1 2026: 91Average
Quarterly Tech Promoter Score (0-100) by product area
Product areaQ4 2024Q1 2025Q2 2025Q3 2025Q4 2025Q1 2026
Scout354646505563
Sentry193132372933
Commons283038382323
Forge657172747487
Hive181820515151
Depot446161616161
Flow999695979191
Average445052585558

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 8 engineering strategy dimensions behind the score

Build it well, run it well
Code quality and operational ownership are one discipline, not two.
A set of few intentional tools
Deliberate technology choices over a sprawl of one-off frameworks.
AWS Native over Cloud Native
Lean on managed platform primitives instead of reinventing infrastructure.
Democratize the data
Data is accessible and usable across teams, not siloed behind one owner.
Event-driven architecture
Systems react to events rather than polling or tight coupling.
Composable building blocks
Shared, reusable components over bespoke solutions per team.
Secure
Security is a design constraint from the start, not a later audit.
Knowledge level in team
The team understands the systems it runs, not just the code it wrote.

Want to bring structured tech health tracking to your organisation? Let's talk.

Get in touch