| KPI | Health | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Development Hiring Actual vs Plan | Okay |
|
| Sales Renewal CSAT | Okay |
|
| Development Non-Headcount Plan vs Actuals | Okay |
|
| Development Average Location Factor | Attention |
|
| Development Recruiting Average Top-of-Funnel Location Factor | Unknown |
|
| Development Handbook Update Frequency | Attention |
|
| Development Department MR Rate | Okay |
|
| Mean time to merge (MTTM) | Attention |
|
This is a subset of an existing KPI. Please see the definition for the parent KPI.
Employees are in the division "Engineering" and department is "Development".
Target: 281 by June 1, 2020
Chart (Sisense↗)
Status: Okay
Can we improve the sales renewal process to meet a 90% satisfaction rating from internal sales teams?
Target: 90% by May 1, 2020
URL(s)
Status: Okay
This is a subset of an existing KPI. Please see the definition for the parent KPI.
We need to spend our investors' money wisely. We also need to run a responsible business to be successful, and to one day go on the public market.
Target: Unknown until FY21 planning process
URL(s)
Status: Okay
We remain efficient financially if we are hiring globally, working asynchronously, and hiring great people in low-cost regions where we pay market rates. We track an average location factor by function and department so managers can make tradeoffs and hire in an expensive region when they really need specific talent unavailable elsewhere, and offset it with great people who happen to be in low cost areas.
Target: .54 average location factor
Chart (Sisense↗)
Status: Attention
We need to be proactive in measuring our location factor, starting with candidates who are at the top of the recruiting funnel. This gives us the average location factor of our candidates upon their application. The data comes from Greenhouse (candidates are asked to provide their location when applying and these are recorded in Greenhouse).
Target: 0.58
Chart (Sisense↗)
Status: Unknown
This is a subset of an existing KPI. Please see the definition for the parent KPI.
The handbook is essential to working remote successfully, to keeping up our transparency, and to recruiting successfully. Our processes are constantly evolving and we need a way to make sure the handbook is being updated at a regular cadence. This data is retrieved by querying the API with a python script for merge requests that have files matching `/source/handbook/engineering/development/**` over time.
Target: 90
Chart (Sisense↗)
Status: Attention
MR Rate is a monthly evaluation of how MRs on average an author performs. It’s important because it measures productivity. We include external contributions from the wider community. We want to be efficient at accepting community contributions, as a result, the data is analyzed on a per category/group basis and never per team members. We count all members of the Development Department (Directors, EMs, ICs) in the denominator because this is a team effort. The Senior Director of Development is the DRI on what projects are included. There is more detail on this KPI in the Engineering section of the handbook.
Target: 13 MRs per Development Engineer per Month
Chart (Sisense↗)
Status: Okay
To be aligned with CycleTime from Development. Monthly mean time to merge MRs, it tells us on average how long it takes from submitting code to being merged. The VP of Development is the DRI on what projects are included.
Target: On average under 4 days
Chart (Sisense↗)
Status: Attention
Discretionary bonuses offer a highly motivating way to reward individual GitLab team members who really shine as they live our values. Our goal is to award discretionary bonuses to 10% of GitLab team members in the Development department every month.
Target: 10%
URL(s)
Status: Unknown
Throughput shows the number of Merge Requests (MRs) on a month by month basis. It’s important because it shows the overall development teams velocity and helps ensure that we are continually making our product better. The Senior Director of Development is the DRI on what projects are included. Please note that not all MRs in GitLab will count towards Throughput.
Target: 20% increase quarter of quarter
URL(s)
Chart (Sisense↗)
Status: Okay
Measurement of time CVE being issued to our product being updated.
Target: 7 days (until further data is provided)
URL(s)
Chart (Sisense↗)
Status: Okay
Measurement of time from Community member MR proposed till GitLab response. It’s important because it shows our commitment to community and engagement.
Target: No Target Set
URL(s)
Status: Unknown
BE Unit Test coverage shows the unit test coverage of our code base. As an example 95% represents that 95% of the LOC in our BE software is unit tested. It’s important as it shows how much code is tested early in the development process.
Target: 95%
URL(s)
Status: Okay
FE Unit Test coverage shows the unit test coverage of our code base. As an example 95% represents that 95% of the LOC in our FE software is unit tested. It’s important as it shows how much code is tested early in the development process.
Target: 75%
URL(s)
Chart (Sisense↗)
Status: Attention
We want to measure the lifecycle of MRs and reduce the tail of MRs. We don't expect to ever eliminate it because there can be unique cases, but we don't the tail trending up.
Target: < 10% of MRs in the past 3 months are merged more than 14 days after they are opened
Chart (Sisense↗)
Status: Attention
We want to measure the breakdown of our development investment by MR type/label. If an MR has more than one of these labels, the highest one in the list takes precedence.
Target: < 5% change in proportion of MRs with undefined label
Chart (Sisense↗)
Status: Unknown
Say do ratios measure the number of product issues that were committed to a development phase vs. the number of product issues that were closed at the end of the release cycle. We don’t want to put pressure on teams to make commitments and push to deliver on those commitments. Rather, we want to optimize for velocity over predictability to deliver more value per release. It’s important to note that this is also not used as a comparative metric across team but rather to help each team understand what they are consistently able to deliver during each release. Additionally, the say do ratios help us clean up issues and encourage conversations between engineering managers and product managers.
Target: Unknown
URL(s)
Status: Unknown
We want to compare the Development Department Member MR Rate (the ratio of product MRs authored by team members in Development Department to the number of team members in the Development Department) to the Development Department MR Rate (the ratio of product MRs to the number of team members in the Development Department). It's important because it shows us how productivity within the Development Department has changed over time.
Target: Unknown
Chart (Sisense↗)
Status: Okay
We want to measure the number of contributors and contributions made outside of the Development Department. We do this by looking at the number of product MRs merged by members in the Development Department (Directors, EMs, ICs) vs the number of product MRs merged by members outside of the Development Department. It's important because it shows how much of what gets shipped is being done by members outside of the Development Department.
Target: Unknown
Chart (Sisense↗)
Status: Okay
We aim to keep the merge request per maintainer at a reasonable level.
Target: 20
Chart (Sisense↗)
Status: Okay
This tracks the number of maintainers and trainees over time.
Target: Unknown
Chart (Sisense↗)
Status: Okay
The percentage of engineers who worked on less than X merge requests. Observing the MR rate distribution across individuals helps us understand how productivity distribution is changing over time. Please note that data prior to the last 1-3 months is susceptible due to historical data challenges.
Target: Unknown
Chart (Sisense↗)
Status: Unknown
| Value | Level | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| 3 | Okay | The KPI is at an acceptable level compared to the threshold |
| 2 | Attention | This is a blip, or we’re going to watch it, or we just need to enact a proven intervention |
| 1 | Problem | We'll prioritize our efforts here |
| 0 | Unknown | Unknown |
| Value | Level | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| 3 | Okay | We are correctly capturing and measuring data for GitLab.com and self-managed instances. |
| 2 | Attention | Missing one of: GitLab.com or self-managed data. |
| 1 | Problem | Missing both: GitLab.com and self-managed data. |
| 0 | Unknown | Unknown |
Pages, such as the Engineering Function Performance Indicators page are rendered by an ERB template that contains HTML code.
Other PI Pages sectionThese ERB templates calls custom helper functions that extract and transform data from the Performance Indicators data file.
kpi_list_by_org(org) helper function takes a required string argument named org (deparment or division level) that returns all the KPIs (pi.is_key == true) for a specific organization grouping (pi.org == org) from the Performance Indicators data file.pi_maturity_level(performance_indicator) helper function automatically assigns a maturity level based on the availability of certain data properties for a particular PI.pi_maturity_reasons(performance_indicator) helper function returns a reason for a PI maturity based on other data properties.performance_indicator_target(name) helper function returns the target value from the target property for a specific PI from the Performance Indicators data file.performance_indicators(org) takes a required string argument named org (deparment or division level) that returns two lists - a list of all KPIs and a list of all PIs for a specific organization grouping (department/division).signed_periscope_url(data) takes in the sisense_data property information from the Performance Indicators data file and returns a signed chart URL for embedding a Sisense chart into the handbook.The heart of pages like this is the Performance Indicators data file which is in YAML file. Each - denotes a dictionary of values for a new (K)PI. The current elements (or data properties) are:
| Property | Type | Description |
|---|---|---|
name |
Required | String value of the name of the (K)PI |
base_path |
Required | Relative path to the performance indicator page that this (K)PI should live on |
definition |
Required | refer to Parts of a KPI |
parent |
Optional | should be used when a (K)PI is a subset of another PI. For example, we might care about Hiring vs Plan at the company level. The child would be the division and department levels, which would have the parent flag. |
target |
Required | The target or cap for the (K)PI. Please use Unknown until we reach maturity level 2 if this is not yet defined. |
org |
Required | the organizational grouping (Ex: Engineering Function or Development Department) |
is_key |
Required | boolean value (true/false) that indicates if it is a (key) performance indicator |
health |
Required | has two additional elements/property - level (inclusive value between 0-3) and reasons. This should be updated monthly before Key Meetings by the DRI. |
urls |
Optional | list of urls associated with the (K)PI |
sisense_data |
Optional | contains elements/properties related to Sisense, including chart (numeric Sisense widget ID), dashboard (numeric Sisense dashboard ID), shared_dashboard (Sisense shared dashboard ID), embed (v2) |
public |
Optional | boolean flag that can be set to false where a (K)PI does not meet the public guidelines. |
instrumentation |
Optional | has two additional elements/property - level (inclusive value between 0-3) and reasons. This should be updated monthly before Key Meetings by the DRI. |
shared_dashboard, chart , and the dashboard key-value pairs to the Performance Indicators data file under the sisense_data property: in strings as it's an important character in YAML and will confuse the data parsing process. Put the string in "quotes" if you really need to use a :urls: should be an array (indented lines starting with dashes) even if you only have one urlmaturity.level and health.level display a value between 0 and 3 (inclusive).