KPI Tracking and Measurement Framework
Overview
Role-based Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) aligned with AzmX strategic objectives and team structure.
KPI Framework by Role
Frontend Engineers (4 members)
KPI Summary
| KPI |
Description |
Why It Matters |
Weight |
Target |
Measurement |
| Code Quality Score |
SonarQube rating for maintainability, reliability, security |
Fewer bugs, easier maintenance, better team velocity |
20% |
≥80% |
SonarQube automated reports |
| Design System Accuracy |
Pixel-perfect UI component implementation |
Brand consistency, professional UX, design-dev alignment |
25% |
≥95% pass rate |
QA design checklist in ClickUp |
| Sprint Completion Rate |
Assigned tickets finished per sprint |
Predictability, team velocity, project planning |
25% |
≥85% |
ClickUp ticket completion |
| PR Review Quality |
Review turnaround time and thoroughness |
Team collaboration, knowledge sharing, code quality |
15% |
<4h turnaround |
GitHub PR metrics |
| Bug Introduction Rate |
Production bugs per feature delivered |
Code stability, customer experience |
15% |
<2 bugs/feature |
Sentry + ClickUp tracking |
| TOTAL |
|
|
100% |
|
|
%%{init: {'theme':'base', 'themeVariables': {'pie1':'#0077BB','pie2':'#33BBEE','pie3':'#009988','pie4':'#EE7733','pie5':'#CC3311'}}}%%
pie showData title Frontend Engineer KPI Distribution
"Design System Accuracy" : 25
"Sprint Completion" : 25
"Code Quality" : 20
"PR Review Quality" : 15
"Bug Introduction Rate" : 15
Backend Engineers (2 members)
KPI Summary
| KPI |
Description |
Why It Matters |
Weight |
Target |
Measurement |
| Test Coverage & Code Quality |
Unit test coverage + SonarQube rating |
Reliable code, fewer production bugs, easier maintenance |
30% |
≥80% coverage |
CI/CD reports + SonarQube |
| API Performance & Error Rate |
Response time + error rate composite score |
User experience, system reliability, scalability |
20% |
≤500ms, ≤2% errors |
Sentry + APM tools |
| Issue Resolution Time |
Time to resolve critical backend incidents |
Customer impact minimization, service reliability |
20% |
≤2 days |
Sentry/ClickUp timestamps |
| Code Review Quality |
PR review thoroughness and timeliness |
Knowledge sharing, code quality, team collaboration |
15% |
<4h turnaround |
GitHub PR metrics |
| Documentation Quality |
API docs completeness and accuracy |
Developer productivity, onboarding speed, API adoption |
15% |
≥90% coverage |
Doc review checklist |
| TOTAL |
|
|
100% |
|
|
%%{init: {'theme':'base', 'themeVariables': {'pie1':'#0077BB','pie2':'#33BBEE','pie3':'#009988','pie4':'#EE7733','pie5':'#CC3311'}}}%%
pie showData title Backend Engineer KPI Distribution
"Test Coverage & Quality" : 30
"API Performance & Errors" : 20
"Issue Resolution Time" : 20
"Code Review Quality" : 15
"Documentation Quality" : 15
AI/ML Engineers (2 members)
KPI Summary
| KPI |
Description |
Why It Matters |
Weight |
Target |
Measurement |
| Model Accuracy |
Accuracy for given use case vs ground truth |
Core ML value delivery, customer satisfaction |
35% |
≥90% accuracy |
Test data validation + MLflow |
| API Uptime |
Uptime for deployed models/APIs |
Service reliability, customer trust, SLA compliance |
25% |
≥95% uptime |
Uptime monitoring tools |
| Experiment Velocity |
Experiments completed per sprint |
Innovation speed, model iteration, business agility |
20% |
≥5 experiments |
MLflow tracking |
| Code Quality Score |
SonarQube rating for ML code |
Maintainability, reproducibility, team collaboration |
10% |
≥70% |
SonarQube reports |
| Documentation Quality |
Model cards, API docs, experiment logs |
Knowledge sharing, model governance, compliance |
10% |
≥85% completeness |
Doc review checklist |
| TOTAL |
|
|
100% |
|
|
%%{init: {'theme':'base', 'themeVariables': {'pie1':'#0077BB','pie2':'#33BBEE','pie3':'#009988','pie4':'#EE7733','pie5':'#CC3311'}}}%%
pie showData title AI/ML Engineer KPI Distribution
"Model Accuracy" : 35
"API Uptime" : 25
"Experiment Velocity" : 20
"Code Quality" : 10
"Documentation Quality" : 10
DevOps Engineers (2 members)
KPI Summary
| KPI |
Description |
Why It Matters |
Weight |
Target |
Measurement |
| Infrastructure Change Success Rate |
Successful, no-rollback deployments |
Service stability, deployment confidence, customer experience |
30% |
≥95% success |
CI/CD logs + incident reports |
| IaC Automation Coverage |
Infrastructure defined and managed by IaC |
Consistency, reproducibility, disaster recovery speed |
30% |
≥90% coverage |
Terraform/Ansible audit |
| System Uptime |
Overall infrastructure availability |
Customer experience, revenue protection, SLA compliance |
20% |
≥99.5% uptime |
Monitoring dashboards |
| Mean Time to Recovery (MTTR) |
Time to resolve high-severity incidents |
Customer impact minimization, service reliability |
10% |
≤12 hours |
Incident log timestamps |
| Security Compliance |
Passing security scans and audits |
Risk mitigation, regulatory compliance, customer trust |
10% |
100% critical fixes |
Security scanning tools |
| TOTAL |
|
|
100% |
|
|
%%{init: {'theme':'base', 'themeVariables': {'pie1':'#0077BB','pie2':'#33BBEE','pie3':'#009988','pie4':'#EE7733','pie5':'#CC3311'}}}%%
pie showData title DevOps Engineer KPI Distribution
"Infrastructure Success Rate" : 30
"IaC Automation Coverage" : 30
"System Uptime" : 20
"MTTR" : 10
"Security Compliance" : 10
QA Engineers (1 member)
KPI Summary
| KPI |
Description |
Why It Matters |
Weight |
Target |
Measurement |
| Customer Satisfaction Impact |
Contribution to team CSAT through quality testing |
QA is last gate before customers - poor testing = unhappy customers |
25% |
≥80% CSAT |
Quarterly CSAT + production bug analysis |
| Bug Detection Rate |
Bugs found before production release |
Customer experience, brand reputation, support cost reduction |
30% |
≥90% pre-release |
Pre vs post-release ratio |
| Test Coverage |
Test cases executed per sprint |
Quality assurance completeness, risk mitigation |
25% |
≥95% execution |
Test management reports |
| Issue Resolution Time |
Bug verification time after fix |
Development velocity, release speed |
20% |
≤24 hours |
Fix-to-verification timestamps |
| TOTAL |
|
|
100% |
|
|
%%{init: {'theme':'base', 'themeVariables': {'pie1':'#0077BB','pie2':'#33BBEE','pie3':'#009988','pie4':'#EE7733'}}}%%
pie showData title QA Engineer KPI Distribution
"Bug Detection Rate" : 30
"CSAT Impact" : 25
"Test Coverage" : 25
"Issue Resolution Time" : 20
Fullstack Developers (3 members)
KPI Summary
| KPI |
Description |
Why It Matters |
Weight |
Target |
Measurement |
| Code Quality Score |
SonarQube rating for frontend + backend code |
Maintainability, fewer bugs, better team velocity |
30% |
≥80% |
SonarQube full-stack reports |
| Feature Delivery Rate |
Assigned features/tickets delivered on time |
Predictability, project planning, customer satisfaction |
30% |
≥85% on-time |
ClickUp ticket tracking |
| Issue Resolution Time |
Time to resolve critical incidents (FE + BE) |
Customer impact minimization, service reliability |
20% |
≤2 days |
Sentry/ClickUp/GitHub timestamps |
| Cross-Stack Knowledge |
Contributions across frontend and backend |
Team resilience, knowledge sharing, bottleneck reduction |
10% |
≥30% cross-stack PRs |
GitHub PR analysis |
| Technical Debt Reduction |
Story points spent on refactoring/tech debt |
Code health, future velocity, maintainability |
10% |
≥15% sprint capacity |
ClickUp sprint reports |
| TOTAL |
|
|
100% |
|
|
%%{init: {'theme':'base', 'themeVariables': {'pie1':'#0077BB','pie2':'#33BBEE','pie3':'#009988','pie4':'#EE7733','pie5':'#CC3311'}}}%%
pie showData title Fullstack Developer KPI Distribution
"Code Quality" : 30
"Feature Delivery Rate" : 30
"Issue Resolution Time" : 20
"Cross-Stack Knowledge" : 10
"Technical Debt Reduction" : 10
Technology Leadership KPIs
Frontend/Mobile Lead (Mohammed Mahgoub)
KPI Summary
| KPI |
Description |
Why It Matters |
Weight |
Target |
Measurement |
| Customer Satisfaction Impact |
Team contribution to CSAT through quality deliverables |
Leadership accountability for customer experience |
25% |
≥80% CSAT |
Quarterly CSAT + team quality metrics |
| Code Quality & Architecture |
Team average SonarQube + architecture reviews |
Team code health, technical excellence, scalability |
20% |
≥85% team avg |
SonarQube + architecture reviews |
| Delivery & Execution |
Sprint tasks closed on time |
Team productivity, predictability, stakeholder trust |
20% |
≥85% on-time |
ClickUp sprint completion |
| Mentorship & Team Coordination |
Positive feedback from team on collaboration |
Team growth, knowledge sharing, retention |
20% |
≥80% positive |
360-degree feedback |
| Technical Roadmap Progress |
Quarterly roadmap milestone completion |
Strategic alignment, innovation, technical debt management |
15% |
≥90% milestones |
Roadmap tracking |
| TOTAL |
|
|
100% |
|
|
%%{init: {'theme':'base', 'themeVariables': {'pie1':'#0077BB','pie2':'#33BBEE','pie3':'#009988','pie4':'#EE7733','pie5':'#CC3311'}}}%%
pie showData title Frontend/Mobile Lead KPI Distribution
"CSAT Impact" : 25
"Code Quality & Architecture" : 20
"Delivery & Execution" : 20
"Mentorship & Coordination" : 20
"Technical Roadmap Progress" : 15
Backend/AI Lead (Abdullah Rizk)
KPI Summary
| KPI |
Description |
Why It Matters |
Weight |
Target |
Measurement |
| Customer Satisfaction Impact |
Team contribution to CSAT through reliable systems |
Leadership accountability for customer experience |
25% |
≥80% CSAT |
Quarterly CSAT + production stability |
| Code Coverage & Quality |
Team coverage + SonarQube score |
Code reliability, bug prevention, maintainability |
20% |
≥80% both metrics |
CI/CD + SonarQube |
| Delivery & Execution |
Sprint tasks/features delivered on time |
Team productivity, predictability, business value delivery |
20% |
≥85% on-time |
ClickUp sprint completion |
| Production Stability |
MTTR + uptime for backend/AI systems |
Customer experience, revenue protection, service reliability |
20% |
≤2 days MTTR, ≥99% uptime |
Incident logs + Sentry |
| Technical Leadership |
Architecture decisions, code reviews, standards |
Technical excellence, team alignment, scalability |
15% |
≥90% adherence |
Architecture review board |
| TOTAL |
|
|
100% |
|
|
%%{init: {'theme':'base', 'themeVariables': {'pie1':'#0077BB','pie2':'#33BBEE','pie3':'#009988','pie4':'#EE7733','pie5':'#CC3311'}}}%%
pie showData title Backend/AI Lead KPI Distribution
"CSAT Impact" : 25
"Code Coverage & Quality" : 20
"Delivery & Execution" : 20
"Production Stability" : 20
"Technical Leadership" : 15
graph TB
A[SonarQube] --> E[KPI Dashboard]
B[Sentry] --> E
C[ClickUp] --> E
D[GitHub] --> E
E --> F[Weekly Reports]
E --> G[Sprint Reviews]
E --> H[Performance Reviews]
Data Sources
- SonarQube: Code quality metrics, test coverage
- Sentry: Error rates, performance metrics, uptime
- ClickUp: Task completion, sprint velocity
- GitHub: PR metrics, deployment success rates
- Custom Monitoring: Infrastructure metrics, business KPIs
KPI Dashboard Structure
Individual Developer Dashboard
John Doe - Frontend Engineer
| KPI |
Current |
Target |
Status |
| Code Quality |
85% |
80% |
✅ Exceeds |
| Design Accuracy |
92% |
95% |
⚠️ Below |
| Sprint Completion |
88% |
85% |
✅ Exceeds |
Current Sprint: 6/8 tasks completed (75%)
Next Review: 2025-02-01
Quarterly Review Process
- Data Collection: Automated KPI aggregation
- Self-Assessment: Individual reflection on goals
- Peer Feedback: 360-degree input collection
- Manager Review: One-on-one performance discussion
- Goal Setting: Next quarter objectives
Career Development Alignment
- KPI performance influences skill development plans
- Training recommendations based on metric gaps
- Promotion criteria tied to consistent KPI achievement
- Cross-functional skill development tracking
Continuous Improvement
Team Feedback Integration
- Regular team retrospectives on KPI relevance
- Adjustment requests and justifications
- Process pain point identification
- Success story sharing and replication