HR Risk Items
Structured field-array of board-attention items, each with type / department / action / narrative quartet (problem / impact / proposal / ask). Chip color follows boardActionNeeded: approval=red, assistance=yellow, awareness=blue. The structured-table version of `hr.board_actions` — preferred when the board has adopted the formal risk-item pattern. Common pitfall: drift toward vague "we are working on it" entries — strong items name a specific action with a date. — HR KPI, I'mBoard-authored (editorial tier).
I'mBoard-authored (editorial tier)
No public third-party standard anchors this KPI yet, so I'mBoard authors and maintains the definition — transparently labeled as editorial tier. See the ontology methodology for the published vs editorial tier system and the back-attribution workstream.
Rogue ID: hr.risk_items
Type: Text
Domain: HR
Definition
Structured field-array of board-attention items, each with type / department / action / narrative quartet (problem / impact / proposal / ask). Chip color follows boardActionNeeded: approval=red, assistance=yellow, awareness=blue. The structured-table version of hr.board_actions — preferred when the board has adopted the formal risk-item pattern. Common pitfall: drift toward vague "we are working on it" entries — strong items name a specific action with a date.
Why it matters
Forces explicit categorization of each item (approval / assistance / awareness) so the board cannot accidentally skip a decision item. The color chips make scanning faster than narrative text alone.
How to interpret
Red chips (approval) demand a vote or formal resolution this meeting. Yellow chips (assistance) need specific board-member action (intros, references) — name the asks. Blue chips (awareness) are FYI for governance log. A standing meeting with all-blue is well-run; all-red signals a governance backlog.
Related KPIs
hr.board_actionshr.talent_challengeshr.retention_initiativeshr.executive_commentary
Source
I'mBoard editorial — authored and maintained by I'mBoard, first published 2026-04-01. No third-party standard is cited for this KPI; when one emerges, the definition is back-attributed and promoted to the published tier (a minor version bump). Read the ontology methodology for the published vs editorial tier system, attribution rules, and dispute process.
Stage relevance
| Company stage | Priority |
|---|---|
| Series A | Recommended |
| Series B | Recommended |
| Series C+ | Recommended |
| Public | Recommended |
Suggested for stages: Series A, Series B, Series C+, Public.
Default owning functions
- HR
Machine-readable
- This KPI as JSON:
/api/ontology/hr/risk_items.json - All HR KPIs:
/api/ontology/hr.json - Full catalog:
/api/ontology/index.json
Retention Initiatives
Narrative on the programs and actions in flight to retain key talent and reduce voluntary turnover — refresh grants, comp-band adjustments, manager training, career-pathing programs, and similar. The response side of the `hr.at_risk_count` and `hr.voluntary_turnover_rate` story. Common pitfall: listing perks (snacks, swag) instead of actions tied to retention drivers. Best practice is to name the initiative, the at-risk population it targets, and the leading-indicator metric you'll watch. — HR KPI, I'mBoard-authored (editorial tier).
Talent Challenges
Narrative on key hiring difficulties, attrition concerns, comp-market pressure, and market-driven talent risks that the board should weigh in on or be aware of. The "watch this" companion to `hr.talent_highlights`. Common pitfall: sanitizing this section to avoid uncomfortable conversations — but talent challenges are precisely where boards add the most value (warm intros, comp benchmarking, executive search). Best practice is to name the specific role, team, or risk and the ask explicitly. — HR KPI, I'mBoard-authored (editorial tier).