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.

  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 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?

    Snowberry-authored — no source questions existed for this dimension.

  • 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