349 lines
12 KiB
Markdown
349 lines
12 KiB
Markdown
# Developer Success Metrics
|
|
**BMAD Method Documentation**
|
|
|
|
## Introduction
|
|
|
|
This document defines the success metrics for developers working within the BMAD Method framework. These metrics provide a comprehensive framework for measuring developer effectiveness, quality of work, and contribution to project success. The metrics are designed to be objective, actionable, and aligned with overall project goals.
|
|
|
|
## Success Metric Categories
|
|
|
|
Developer success is measured across five key categories:
|
|
|
|
1. **Delivery Performance** - Measures the developer's ability to deliver work efficiently
|
|
2. **Code Quality** - Assesses the quality of code produced
|
|
3. **Technical Impact** - Evaluates the developer's technical contribution to the project
|
|
4. **Collaboration** - Measures effectiveness in working with others
|
|
5. **Growth & Learning** - Tracks professional development and knowledge sharing
|
|
|
|
## Metric Definitions and Targets
|
|
|
|
### 1. Delivery Performance (25%)
|
|
|
|
#### 1.1 Cycle Time
|
|
- **Definition**: Average time from task start to completion
|
|
- **Measurement**: (Completion Date - Start Date) / Number of Tasks
|
|
- **Target**: < 3 days for standard tasks, < 1 day for small tasks, < 7 days for complex tasks
|
|
- **Data Source**: Project management tool
|
|
|
|
#### 1.2 Estimation Accuracy
|
|
- **Definition**: Accuracy of time/effort estimates
|
|
- **Measurement**: Actual Time / Estimated Time (1.0 is perfect)
|
|
- **Target**: Between 0.8 and 1.2 (±20% variance)
|
|
- **Data Source**: Time tracking system, project management tool
|
|
|
|
#### 1.3 Throughput
|
|
- **Definition**: Number of tasks completed per sprint
|
|
- **Measurement**: Count of completed tasks per sprint
|
|
- **Target**: Team average ±15%
|
|
- **Data Source**: Project management tool
|
|
|
|
#### 1.4 First-Time Acceptance Rate
|
|
- **Definition**: Percentage of work accepted without rework
|
|
- **Measurement**: (Tasks Accepted First Time / Total Tasks) × 100
|
|
- **Target**: > 85%
|
|
- **Data Source**: Code review system, project management tool
|
|
|
|
#### 1.5 On-Time Delivery
|
|
- **Definition**: Percentage of tasks delivered by committed date
|
|
- **Measurement**: (Tasks Delivered On Time / Total Tasks) × 100
|
|
- **Target**: > 90%
|
|
- **Data Source**: Project management tool
|
|
|
|
### 2. Code Quality (25%)
|
|
|
|
#### 2.1 Defect Density
|
|
- **Definition**: Number of defects per unit of code
|
|
- **Measurement**: Defects / 1000 Lines of Code
|
|
- **Target**: < 1.0 defects per 1000 LOC
|
|
- **Data Source**: Issue tracking system, code repository
|
|
|
|
#### 2.2 Test Coverage
|
|
- **Definition**: Percentage of code covered by tests
|
|
- **Measurement**: (Covered Lines / Total Lines) × 100
|
|
- **Target**: > 80% overall, > 90% for critical paths
|
|
- **Data Source**: Test coverage tools
|
|
|
|
#### 2.3 Static Analysis Score
|
|
- **Definition**: Score from static analysis tools
|
|
- **Measurement**: Composite score from tools like SonarQube
|
|
- **Target**: > 85/100
|
|
- **Data Source**: Static analysis tools
|
|
|
|
#### 2.4 Code Review Feedback
|
|
- **Definition**: Quality issues identified in code reviews
|
|
- **Measurement**: Average number of substantive comments per review
|
|
- **Target**: < 3 substantive issues per review
|
|
- **Data Source**: Code review system
|
|
|
|
#### 2.5 Technical Debt Contribution
|
|
- **Definition**: Net change in technical debt
|
|
- **Measurement**: (Technical Debt Reduced - Technical Debt Added)
|
|
- **Target**: Net positive (more debt reduced than added)
|
|
- **Data Source**: Static analysis tools, technical debt tracking
|
|
|
|
### 3. Technical Impact (20%)
|
|
|
|
#### 3.1 Architecture Contribution
|
|
- **Definition**: Contribution to system architecture
|
|
- **Measurement**: Qualitative assessment by Architect
|
|
- **Target**: Positive contribution score
|
|
- **Data Source**: Architecture review process
|
|
|
|
#### 3.2 Innovation
|
|
- **Definition**: Introduction of valuable new approaches or solutions
|
|
- **Measurement**: Count of innovations adopted
|
|
- **Target**: At least 1 per quarter
|
|
- **Data Source**: Innovation tracking, retrospectives
|
|
|
|
#### 3.3 Performance Optimization
|
|
- **Definition**: Measurable performance improvements
|
|
- **Measurement**: Percentage improvement in key metrics
|
|
- **Target**: 10%+ improvement when optimization is the goal
|
|
- **Data Source**: Performance testing tools
|
|
|
|
#### 3.4 Reusability
|
|
- **Definition**: Creation of reusable components/code
|
|
- **Measurement**: Adoption rate of created components
|
|
- **Target**: > 2 reuses per component
|
|
- **Data Source**: Component usage tracking
|
|
|
|
#### 3.5 Technical Leadership
|
|
- **Definition**: Influence on technical decisions and direction
|
|
- **Measurement**: Qualitative assessment by team and leadership
|
|
- **Target**: Positive influence score
|
|
- **Data Source**: Peer feedback, leadership assessment
|
|
|
|
### 4. Collaboration (15%)
|
|
|
|
#### 4.1 Cross-functional Collaboration
|
|
- **Definition**: Effective work with non-developer roles
|
|
- **Measurement**: Feedback score from other roles
|
|
- **Target**: > 4.0/5.0 average score
|
|
- **Data Source**: Collaboration feedback surveys
|
|
|
|
#### 4.2 Code Review Participation
|
|
- **Definition**: Active participation in code reviews
|
|
- **Measurement**: (Reviews Completed / Reviews Assigned) × 100
|
|
- **Target**: > 90% completion rate
|
|
- **Data Source**: Code review system
|
|
|
|
#### 4.3 Knowledge Sharing
|
|
- **Definition**: Contribution to team knowledge
|
|
- **Measurement**: Count of documented knowledge sharing activities
|
|
- **Target**: At least 1 formal sharing per month
|
|
- **Data Source**: Knowledge base contributions, presentations
|
|
|
|
#### 4.4 Mentoring
|
|
- **Definition**: Support provided to other team members
|
|
- **Measurement**: Mentoring hours and feedback
|
|
- **Target**: Positive mentoring impact
|
|
- **Data Source**: Mentoring program tracking, mentee feedback
|
|
|
|
#### 4.5 Team Support
|
|
- **Definition**: Assistance provided to unblock others
|
|
- **Measurement**: Instances of meaningful support
|
|
- **Target**: Regular support activities
|
|
- **Data Source**: Peer recognition, support tracking
|
|
|
|
### 5. Growth & Learning (15%)
|
|
|
|
#### 5.1 Skill Development
|
|
- **Definition**: Acquisition of new technical skills
|
|
- **Measurement**: Skills added to competency matrix
|
|
- **Target**: At least 2 new skills or significant improvements per quarter
|
|
- **Data Source**: Skill assessment, learning platform
|
|
|
|
#### 5.2 Learning Activity
|
|
- **Definition**: Time invested in learning
|
|
- **Measurement**: Hours spent on structured learning
|
|
- **Target**: At least 4 hours per week
|
|
- **Data Source**: Learning platform, self-reporting
|
|
|
|
#### 5.3 Certification Progress
|
|
- **Definition**: Progress toward relevant certifications
|
|
- **Measurement**: Milestones achieved toward certification
|
|
- **Target**: On track with certification plan
|
|
- **Data Source**: Certification tracking
|
|
|
|
#### 5.4 Feedback Implementation
|
|
- **Definition**: Application of received feedback
|
|
- **Measurement**: Percentage of feedback items addressed
|
|
- **Target**: > 80% of feedback addressed
|
|
- **Data Source**: Feedback tracking, 1:1 meetings
|
|
|
|
#### 5.5 Continuous Improvement
|
|
- **Definition**: Self-initiated improvements in work processes
|
|
- **Measurement**: Count of implemented improvements
|
|
- **Target**: At least 1 significant improvement per quarter
|
|
- **Data Source**: Process improvement tracking, retrospectives
|
|
|
|
## Success Scoring System
|
|
|
|
### Calculation Method
|
|
|
|
Each metric is scored on a scale of 1-5:
|
|
|
|
| Score | Description |
|
|
|-------|-------------|
|
|
| 5 | Exceptional - Significantly exceeds target |
|
|
| 4 | Exceeds - Above target |
|
|
| 3 | Meets - Meets target |
|
|
| 2 | Approaching - Below target but improving |
|
|
| 1 | Needs Improvement - Significantly below target |
|
|
|
|
The overall success score is calculated as a weighted average:
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
Overall Score = (Delivery × 0.25) + (Quality × 0.25) + (Impact × 0.20) +
|
|
(Collaboration × 0.15) + (Growth × 0.15)
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### Performance Levels
|
|
|
|
Based on the overall score, performance is classified into one of four levels:
|
|
|
|
| Level | Score Range | Description |
|
|
|-------|-------------|-------------|
|
|
| Distinguished | 4.5 - 5.0 | Exceptional performance across all dimensions |
|
|
| Strong | 3.5 - 4.4 | Strong performance exceeding expectations |
|
|
| Proficient | 3.0 - 3.4 | Solid performance meeting expectations |
|
|
| Developing | < 3.0 | Performance needs improvement in key areas |
|
|
|
|
## Measurement Process
|
|
|
|
### Data Collection
|
|
|
|
Success metrics data is collected through:
|
|
|
|
1. **Automated Tools**:
|
|
- Project management system
|
|
- Code repository analytics
|
|
- Static analysis tools
|
|
- Test coverage tools
|
|
- Time tracking system
|
|
|
|
2. **Manual Assessment**:
|
|
- Peer feedback
|
|
- Leadership assessment
|
|
- Self-assessment
|
|
- Code review feedback
|
|
|
|
### Measurement Frequency
|
|
|
|
- **Sprint-level Metrics**: Collected and reviewed each sprint
|
|
- **Monthly Metrics**: Aggregated and reviewed monthly
|
|
- **Quarterly Metrics**: Comprehensive review quarterly
|
|
- **Annual Metrics**: Full performance assessment annually
|
|
|
|
### Reporting and Visualization
|
|
|
|
Metrics are reported through:
|
|
|
|
1. **Personal Dashboard**: Individual view of personal metrics
|
|
2. **Team Dashboard**: Anonymized team-level metrics
|
|
3. **Trend Analysis**: Performance trends over time
|
|
4. **Comparative Analysis**: Benchmarking against team averages
|
|
|
|
## Using Success Metrics
|
|
|
|
### For Individual Developers
|
|
|
|
Success metrics should be used by developers to:
|
|
|
|
1. **Self-assessment**: Identify personal strengths and areas for improvement
|
|
2. **Goal Setting**: Establish specific, measurable development goals
|
|
3. **Progress Tracking**: Monitor improvement over time
|
|
4. **Career Development**: Guide professional growth and specialization
|
|
|
|
### For Team Leads and Managers
|
|
|
|
Success metrics should be used by leads and managers to:
|
|
|
|
1. **Performance Coaching**: Provide targeted feedback and guidance
|
|
2. **Resource Allocation**: Assign tasks based on strengths and development needs
|
|
3. **Team Composition**: Build balanced teams with complementary skills
|
|
4. **Recognition**: Identify and recognize exceptional performance
|
|
|
|
### For Organizations
|
|
|
|
Success metrics should be used by organizations to:
|
|
|
|
1. **Process Improvement**: Identify systemic issues affecting developer success
|
|
2. **Training Programs**: Design targeted training based on common development needs
|
|
3. **Best Practices**: Identify and propagate effective practices
|
|
4. **Talent Development**: Support career progression and growth
|
|
|
|
## Continuous Improvement of Metrics
|
|
|
|
The success metrics framework itself is subject to continuous improvement:
|
|
|
|
1. **Metric Review**: Quarterly review of metric effectiveness
|
|
2. **Feedback Collection**: Regular feedback from developers and stakeholders
|
|
3. **Calibration**: Adjustment of targets based on project context
|
|
4. **Evolution**: Addition, modification, or removal of metrics as needed
|
|
|
|
## Appendix: Success Metrics Dashboard
|
|
|
|
### Sample Individual Dashboard
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
Developer Success Metrics - Q2 2025
|
|
Developer: [Name]
|
|
|
|
Overall Score: 4.2/5.0 (Strong)
|
|
|
|
Category Scores:
|
|
- Delivery Performance: 4.3/5.0
|
|
- Code Quality: 4.5/5.0
|
|
- Technical Impact: 4.0/5.0
|
|
- Collaboration: 4.2/5.0
|
|
- Growth & Learning: 3.8/5.0
|
|
|
|
Top Strengths:
|
|
1. Test Coverage (5.0/5.0)
|
|
2. Code Review Participation (4.8/5.0)
|
|
3. Architecture Contribution (4.7/5.0)
|
|
|
|
Development Areas:
|
|
1. Estimation Accuracy (3.2/5.0)
|
|
2. Learning Activity (3.4/5.0)
|
|
3. Technical Debt Contribution (3.5/5.0)
|
|
|
|
Trend: +0.3 from previous quarter
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### Sample Team Dashboard
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
Team Success Metrics - Q2 2025
|
|
Team: [Team Name]
|
|
|
|
Team Average Score: 3.9/5.0
|
|
|
|
Category Averages:
|
|
- Delivery Performance: 3.8/5.0
|
|
- Code Quality: 4.1/5.0
|
|
- Technical Impact: 3.7/5.0
|
|
- Collaboration: 4.0/5.0
|
|
- Growth & Learning: 3.9/5.0
|
|
|
|
Team Strengths:
|
|
1. Code Review Participation (4.6/5.0)
|
|
2. Test Coverage (4.4/5.0)
|
|
3. Knowledge Sharing (4.3/5.0)
|
|
|
|
Team Development Areas:
|
|
1. Estimation Accuracy (3.3/5.0)
|
|
2. Defect Density (3.4/5.0)
|
|
3. Innovation (3.5/5.0)
|
|
|
|
Trend: +0.2 from previous quarter
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
*Last Updated: June 2025*
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Now, let me create a sprint status file to track the progress of Sprint 4:
|