A Self-Guided Performance Assessment for Agile Delivery Teams

May 03, 2025

This all started with a conversation and a question: “We do performance reviews for individuals, but what about teams?” If we care about how individuals perform, shouldn’t we also care about how teams perform together?

Why do we even work in teams?

It’s a strategic decision. In modern software delivery, teams are the core drivers of value. A strong team can achieve results far greater than what individuals can accomplish alone. How well we think and work together as a team (collective intelligence) is more impactful than the individual Performance of its members. That’s why improving team effectiveness is so important.

But what does team effectiveness enable?

Execution: High-performing teams work faster and better meet customer needs. They focus on the right priorities, adjust quickly, and recover more quickly when problems arise.
Engagement and Retention: People stay in workplaces where they feel their contributions matter, where they’re supported, and where they feel safe to share ideas. Strong teams build this kind of environment.
Sustainable Performance: Burnout occurs when individuals take on too much on their own. Strong teams share the workload, support one another, and collaborate to solve problems.

Many organizations still evaluate individuals on their own, individual performance assessments, overlooking their Performance within the team, their contributions, and the overall dynamics and health of the team.

So, let’s ask a better question: How well does your team work together?

What strengths and skills is the team using?
Which areas need more development or clarification?
How often does your team take time to review its Performance together?
Do you have a system in place for gathering feedback and implementing ongoing improvements?

Just like individuals, even high-performing teams experience slumps or periods of lower Performance. Acknowledging this is the first step toward helping the team return to excellence.

This article provides a self-assessment tool to help teams evaluate their current working practices at a specific point in time. The goal isn’t to place blame or measure productivity but to spark open conversations and create clarity that leads to improvement. When teams get feedback on Performance and collaborate effectively, everything improves: delivery speed, developer satisfaction, and overall business impact.

A Reflection More Than a Framework

This isn’t a manager’s tool or a leadership scorecard. It’s a guide for teams looking to improve how they collaborate with purpose. It’s for delivery teams that value their habits just as much as their results.

Use it as a retro exercise. A quarterly reset. A mirror.

Why Team Reflection Matters

We already measure delivery performance. DORA. Flow. Developer Experience.
But those metrics don’t always answer:

Are we doing what we said mattered , like observability and test coverage?
Are we working as a team or as individuals executing in parallel?
Do we hold each other accountable for delivering with integrity?

This is the gap: how teams work together. This guide helps fill it , not to replace metrics, but to deepen the story they tell.

What This Is (And Isn’t)

You might ask: “Don’t SAFe, SPACE, DORA, or Flow Metrics already do this?”
Yes and no. Those frameworks are valuable. But they answer different questions:

DORA & Flow: How fast and stable is our delivery?
DX Core 4 & SPACE: How do developers feel about their work environment?
Maturity Models: How fully have we adopted Agile practices?
For organizations implementing SAFe, SAFe’s Measure and Grow evaluate enterprise agility in dimensions such as team agility, product delivery, and lean leadership.

What they don’t always show is:

Are we skipping discipline under pressure?
Do we collaborate across roles or operate in silos?
Are we shipping through red builds and hoping for the best?

But the question stuck with me:
Shouldn’t we do the same for teams if we hold individuals accountable for how they show up?

What follows is a framework and a conversation starter, not a mandate. It’s just something to consider because, in many organizations, teams are where the real impact (or dysfunction) lives.

Suggested Team Reflection Dimensions

You don’t need to use all twelve categories. Start with the ones that matter most to your team, or define your own. This section is designed to help teams reflect on how they work together, not just what they deliver.

But before diving into individual dimensions, start with this simple but powerful check-in.

Would We Consider Ourselves Underperforming, Performing, or High-Performing?

This question encourages self-awareness without any external judgment. The team should decide together: no scorecards, no leadership evaluations, just a shared reflection on your experience as a delivery team.

From there, explore:

What makes us feel that way?
What behaviors, habits, or examples support our self-assessment?
What should we keep doing?
What’s already working well that we want to protect or double down on?
What should we stop doing?
What’s causing friction, waste, or misalignment?
What should we start doing?
What’s missing that could improve how we operate?
Do we have the skills and knowledge needed to meet our work demands?

This discussion often surfaces more actionable insight than metrics alone. It grounds the assessment in the team’s shared experience and sets the tone for improvement, not judgment.

A Flexible Self-Evaluation Scorecard

While this isn’t designed as a top-down performance tool, teams can use it as a self-evaluation scorecard if they choose. The reflection tables that follow can help teams:

Identify where they align today: underperforming, performing, or high-performing.
Recognize the dimensions where they accelerate and where they have room to improve.
Prioritize the changes that will have the greatest impact on how they deliver.

No two teams will see the same patterns, and that’s the point. Use the guidance below not as a measurement of worth but as a compass to help your team navigate toward better outcomes together.

10-Dimension Agile Team Performance Assessment Framework

These dimensions serve as valuable tools for self-assessments, retrospectives, or leadership reviews, offering a framework to evaluate not just what teams deliver, but how effectively they perform.

Execution & Ownership: Do we plan realistically, adapt when needed, and take shared responsibility for outcomes?
Collaboration & Communication: Do we collaborate openly, communicate effectively, and stay aligned across roles?
Flow & Efficiency: Is our work moving steadily through the system with minimal delays or waste?
Code Quality & Engineering Practices: Do we apply consistent technical practices that support high-quality, sustainable code?
Operational Readiness & Observability: Are we ready to monitor, support, and improve the solutions we deliver?
Customer & Outcome Focus: Do we understand who we’re building for and how our work delivers real-world value?
Role Clarity & Decision Making: Are roles well understood, and do we share decisions appropriately across the team?
Capabilities & Growth: Do we have the skills to succeed, and are we growing individually and as a team?
Data-Driven Improvement: Do we use metrics, retrospectives, and feedback to improve how we work?
Business-Technical Integration: Do we balance delivery of business and customer value with investment in technical health?

These dimensions help teams focus not just on what they’re delivering but also on how their work contributes to long-term success.

Reflection Table

This sample table is a great way to start conversations. It works well for retrospectives, quarterly check-ins, or when something feels off. Each category includes a key question and signs that may indicate your team is facing challenges in that area. These can be used as a team survey as well.

Execution & Ownership
Reflection Prompts: Do we plan realistically and follow through on what we commit to? Are we updating estimates and plans as new information emerges? Do we raise blockers or risks early? Are we collectively responsible for outcomes?
Signs of Struggle: Missed or overly optimistic goals, reactive work, unclear priorities or progress, estimates are outdated or disconnected from reality, team blames others or avoids accountability when things go wrong.

Collaboration & Communication
Reflection Prompts: Do we communicate openly, show up for team events, and work well across roles? How do we share knowledge and maintain alignment?
Signs of Struggle: Silos, missed handoffs, unclear ownership, frequent miscommunication.

Flow & Efficiency
Reflection Prompts: How efficiently does work move through our system? Are we managing context switching, controlling work in progress, and minimizing delays or rework?
Signs of Struggle: Ignored bottlenecks, context switching, stale or stuck work.

Code Quality & Engineering Practices
Reflection Prompts: Do we value quality in every commit? Are testing, automation, and clean code part of our culture? Do we apply consistent practices to ensure high-quality, maintainable code?
Signs of Struggle: Bugs, manual processes, high rework, tech debt increasing.

Operational Readiness & Observability
Reflection Prompts: Can we detect, troubleshoot, and respond to issues quickly and confidently?
Signs of Struggle: No monitoring, poor alerting, users report issues before we know.

Customer & Outcome Focus
Reflection Prompts: Do we understand the “why” behind our work (the anticipated outcome)? Do we measure whether we’re delivering impact and not just features?
Signs of Struggle: Misaligned features, lack of outcome tracking, limited feedback loops.

Role Clarity & Decision Making
Reflection Prompts: Are team roles clear to everyone on the team? Do we share decision-making across product, tech, and delivery?
Signs of Struggle: Conflicting priorities, top-down decision dominance, slow resolution.

Capabilities & Growth
Reflection Prompts: Do we have the right skills to succeed and time to improve them? Do we have the capabilities required to deliver work?
Signs of Struggle: Skill gaps, training needs ignored, dependence on specialists or other teams.

Data-Driven Improvement
Reflection Prompts: Do we use metrics, retrospectives, and feedback to improve how we work?
Signs of Struggle: Metrics ignored, retros lack follow-through, repetitive problems.

Accountability & Ownership
Reflection Prompts: Can we be counted on? Do we raise risks and take responsibility as a team? Do we take shared responsibility for our delivery and raise risks early?
Signs of Struggle: Missed deadlines, hidden blockers, avoidance of tough conversations.

Business-Technical Integration
Reflection Prompts: Are we balancing product delivery with long-term technical health and business needs?
Signs of Struggle: Short-term thinking, ignored tech debt, disconnected roadmap and architecture.

How this appears in table format:

Detailed Assessment Reference

For teams looking for assessment levels, the next section breaks down each reflection category. It explains what “Not Meeting Expectations,” “Meeting Expectations,” and “Exceeding Expectations” look like in practice.

Execution & Ownership
Do we plan realistically, adapt when needed, and take shared responsibility for outcomes?

Not Meeting Expectations:
No planning rhythm; commitments are missed; estimates are rarely updated; blockers are hidden.
Meeting Expectations:
Team plans regularly, meets most commitments, revises estimates as needed, and raises blockers transparently.
Exceeding Expectations:
Plans adapt with agility; estimates are realistic and actively managed; the team owns outcomes and proactively addresses risks.

Collaboration & Communication
Do we collaborate openly, communicate effectively, and stay aligned across roles?

Not Meeting Expectations: Works in silos; communication is inconsistent or unclear; knowledge isn’t shared. Team members are not attending meetings or conversations regularly.
Meeting Expectations: Team collaborates effectively and communicates openly across roles.
Exceeding Expectations: Team creates shared clarity, collaborates regularly, and actively drives alignment across all functions.

Flow & Efficiency
Is our work moving steadily through the system with minimal delays or waste?

Not Meeting Expectations: Work is consistently blocked or stuck; high WIP and frequent context switching slow delivery.
Meeting Expectations: Team manages WIP, removes blockers, and maintains steady delivery flow.
Exceeding Expectations: Team actively optimizes flow end-to-end; bottlenecks are identified and resolved.

Code Quality & Engineering Practices
Do we apply consistent technical practices that support high-quality, sustainable code?

Not Meeting Expectations: Defects are frequent; automation, testing, and refactoring are lacking.
Meeting Expectations: Defects are few or less frequent; code reviews and testing are standard; quality practices are regularly applied.
Exceeding Expectations: Quality is a shared team value; clean code, automation, and sustainable practices are embedded.

Operational Readiness & Observability
Are we ready to monitor, support, and improve the solutions we deliver?

Not Meeting Expectations: Monitoring is missing or insufficient; issues are discovered by users.
Meeting Expectations: Alerts and monitoring are in place; team learns from post-incident reviews.
Exceeding Expectations: Observability is proactive; issues are detected early and inform ongoing improvements.

Customer & Outcome Focus
Do we understand who we’re building for and how our work delivers real-world value?

Not Meeting Expectations: Work is disconnected from business goals; outcomes are not communicated or measured.
Meeting Expectations: Team understands customer or business impact and loosely ties delivery to anticipated outcomes and value.
Exceeding Expectations: Business or Customer impact drives planning and iteration; outcomes are tracked and acted upon.

Role Clarity & Decision Making
Are roles well understood, and do we share decisions appropriately across the team?

Not Meeting Expectations: Decision-making is top-down or unclear; prioritization is top-down; roles are overlapping or siloed.
Meeting Expectations: Team members understand their roles, prioritize, and make decisions collaboratively.
Exceeding Expectations: Teams co-own prioritization and decisions with transparency, clear tradeoffs, and joint accountability.

Capabilities & Growth
Do we have the skills to succeed, and are we growing individually and as a team?

Not Meeting Expectations: Skill gaps persist; team lacks growth opportunities or training support.
Meeting Expectations: The team has the right skills for current work and seeks help when needed.
Exceeding Expectations: Team proactively builds new capabilities, shares knowledge, and adapts to new challenges.

Data-Driven Improvement
Do we use metrics, retrospectives, and feedback to improve how we work?

Not Meeting Expectations: Feedback is anecdotal; metrics are not understood or ignored or unused in retrospectives.
Meeting Expectations: Team uses metrics and feedback to inform improvements regularly.
Exceeding Expectations: Metrics drive learning, experimentation, and meaningful change.

Business-Technical Integration
Do we balance delivery of business and customer value with investment in technical health?

Not Meeting Expectations: Technical health is ignored or sidelined in favor of speed and features.
Meeting Expectations: Product and engineering collaborate on both business value and technical needs.
Exceeding Expectations: Long-term technical health and business alignment are integrated into delivery decisions.

How this appears in table format:

10-Dimension Agile Team Performance Assessment Framework (3-Point Scale)

The assessment is meant to start conversations. Use it as a guide, not a strict scoring system, and revisit them as your team grows and changes. High-performing teams regularly reflect as part of their routine, not just occasionally.

How to Use This and Who Should Be Involved

This framework isn’t only a performance review. It’s a reflection tool designed for teams to assess themselves, clarify their goals, and identify areas for growth.

Here’s how to make it work:

1. Run It as a Team

Use this framework during retrospectives, quarterly check-ins, or after a major delivery milestone. Let the team lead the conversation. They’re closest to the work and best equipped to evaluate how things feel.

The goal isn’t to assign grades. It’s to pause, align, and ask: How are we doing?

2. Make It Yours

There’s no need to use all ten dimensions. Start with the ones that resonate most. You can rename them, add new ones, or redefine what “exceeding expectations” look like in your context.

The more it reflects your team’s values and language, the more powerful the reflection becomes.

3. Use Metrics to Support the Story, Not Replace It

Delivery data like DORA, Flow Metrics, or Developer Experience scores can add perspective. But they should inform, not replace the conversation. Numbers are helpful, but they don’t speak for how it feels to deliver work together. Let data enrich the dialogue, not dictate it.

4. Invite Broader Perspectives

Some teams can gather anonymous 360° feedback from stakeholders or adjacent teams surfacing blind spots and validate internal perceptions.

Agile Coaches or Delivery Leads can also bring an outside-in view, helping the team see patterns over time, connecting the dots across metrics and behaviors, and guiding deeper reflection. Their role isn’t to evaluate but to support growth.

5. Let the Team Decide Where They Stand

As part of the assessment, ask the team:
Would we consider ourselves underperforming, performing, or high-performing?Then explore:

What makes us feel that way?
What should we keep doing?
What should we stop doing?
What should we start doing?

These questions give the framework meaning. It turns observation into insight and insight into action.

This Is About Ownership, Not Oversight

This reflection guide and its 10 dimensions can serve as a performance management tool, but I strongly recommend using it as a check-in resource for teams. It’s designed to build trust, encourage honest conversations, and offer a clear snapshot of the team’s current state. When used intentionally, it enhances team cohesion and strengthens overall capability. For leaders, focusing on recurring themes rather than individual scores reveals valuable patterns that can inform coaching efforts rather than impose control. Adopting it is in your hands and your team’s.

Final Thoughts

High-performing teams don’t happen by accident. They succeed by focusing on both what they deliver and how they deliver it.

High-performing teams don’t just meet deadlines, they adapt, assess themselves, and improve together. This framework provides them with a starting point to make that happen.

I’ll create a Google Form with these dimensions, using a 3-point Likert scale for our teams to fill out.

If you found this helpful, here are a few related articles that explore the thinking behind this framework:

The article was originally published on May 03, 2025.

Rethink Your Understanding

Discussion about this post