Tech leaders can see which concrete metrics top companies use to measure AI tooling impact-adoption, time saved, change failure rate, PR throughput-and how to apply the same framework to balance speed, cost, and quality.
Measuring AI impact in engineering starts with the same core metrics you already track-PR throughput, change failure rate, deployment frequency-and layers on AI-specific signals like adoption rate, CSAT for AI tools, time saved per engineer, and spend. The article pulls data from 18 companies, showing how Google, GitHub, Microsoft, Dropbox, Monzo and others map these metrics to real business outcomes. Dropbox, for example, reports 90% weekly AI tool usage, a 20% lift in PRs per engineer, and a drop in change failure rate after adopting AI, all while tracking daily active users and AI spend.
The piece argues that you don't need brand-new metrics to gauge AI value; you need a solid baseline and a disciplined way to slice the data by role, tenure, or region. By comparing AI users to non-users, running cohort analyses, and surveying developers for change confidence and maintainability, leaders can see whether AI is truly accelerating delivery without accruing hidden technical debt. The AI Measurement Framework distilled from field research offers a template for collecting system data and experience-sampling surveys, then turning the numbers into actionable decisions.
For technical leaders, the take-away is practical: start with your existing Core 4 framework, add a handful of AI-focused measures, and track them over time. Use the data to test hypotheses-does AI improve speed without harming quality?-and adjust tooling or training accordingly. The goal is to move beyond headlines about lines of code and build a balanced view of speed, quality, and cost that informs budgeting, hiring, and long-term engineering health.
Check out the full stdlib collection for more frameworks, templates, and guides to accelerate your technical leadership journey.