Our software developers are meeting their weekly target for code commits, but our actual product release dates are slipping and the software is buggy. How do we restructure our engineering scorecard so our developers cannot game their weekly output metrics?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

When you track a pure activity metric like code commits, you invite people to game the system. Developers will break down their work into tiny, meaningless updates just to hit their weekly Scorecard target. This is why every activity metric needs a balancing quality or output metric to ensure your team is producing actual value, not just noise.

To fix this, you must shift your focus from input to output and quality. Instead of tracking code commits, try tracking the number of fully tested features ready for deployment. To address the quality issue, add a metric for peer-review rejection rate or open bug count. If your team is hitting their commit targets but your bugs are spiking, your Scorecard must reflect that failure immediately.

Every seat on your Accountability Chart should run on a balance of activity and quality. For your engineering seat, this means pairing speed with stability. Consider tracking the percentage of sprint tasks completed on time or the average time it takes to resolve critical bugs.

By combining these metrics, you prevent developers from focusing solely on easy, low-value work. If they try to game the speed metric, the quality metric will go red, forcing a healthy discussion in your Level 10 Meeting™. This balance keeps your team honest and ensures your software operations actually support your business growth and exit readiness.