Commitments Roadmap %
Share of roadmap capacity allocated to CUSTOMER COMMITMENTS — the third slice of the offensive / defensive / commitments roadmap mix (the slice the bespoke product card needs to complete the roadmap-mix bar). Offensive (`product.offensive_roadmap_pct`) is net-new market expansion, defensive (`product.defensive_roadmap_pct`) is retention/churn-prevention work, and this commitments slice is contractually or relationship-committed deliverables (e.g. enterprise SCIM/audit-log promises). The three should sum to 100%. Common pitfall: commitments work going untracked, so the roadmap looks more offensive than the team actually is. — Product 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: product.commitments_roadmap_pct
Type: Percentage (%)
Domain: Product
Definition
Share of roadmap capacity allocated to CUSTOMER COMMITMENTS — the third slice of the offensive / defensive / commitments roadmap mix (the slice the bespoke product card needs to complete the roadmap-mix bar). Offensive (product.offensive_roadmap_pct) is net-new market expansion, defensive (product.defensive_roadmap_pct) is retention/churn-prevention work, and this commitments slice is contractually or relationship-committed deliverables (e.g. enterprise SCIM/audit-log promises). The three should sum to 100%. Common pitfall: commitments work going untracked, so the roadmap looks more offensive than the team actually is.
Formula
commitments_roadmap_pct = customer-committed roadmap capacity ÷ total roadmap capacity × 100. Third slice of the mix: offensive_roadmap_pct + defensive_roadmap_pct + commitments_roadmap_pct = 100%.Why it matters
Makes contractually-committed roadmap work visible as its own category — a high commitments share means the roadmap is increasingly dictated by sales promises rather than product strategy.
How to interpret
Read as the third slice with product.offensive_roadmap_pct and product.defensive_roadmap_pct. A rising commitments share that crowds out offensive work signals the roadmap is being driven by deal-by-deal promises.
Related KPIs
product.offensive_roadmap_pctproduct.defensive_roadmap_pctproduct.key_initiatives
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
- Product
Machine-readable
- This KPI as JSON:
/api/ontology/product/commitments_roadmap_pct.json - All Product KPIs:
/api/ontology/product.json - Full catalog:
/api/ontology/index.json
Capacity Allocation
Breakdown of engineering capacity across new features, maintenance, and tech debt — typically reported as a three-way split summing to 100%. The execution-level view of where engineering hours are actually going (vs. `innovation_capacity_pct` which is a single percentage for new-capabilities work, and vs. `offensive_roadmap_pct` which is a roadmap-classification percentage). Common pitfall: capacity allocation reported in plan rather than actuals. The plan can say 60% new features but the actuals can be 30% new features and 50% support work — the gap is the operating signal. Boards should require both planned and actual splits, at least quarterly. — Product KPI, I'mBoard-authored (editorial tier).
Revenue Protection %
Percentage of the planned roadmap allocated to defensive work — platform reliability, security/compliance, scalability rearchitecture, table-stakes parity with competitors, customer-retention features. The complement of `offensive_roadmap_pct`. Common pitfall: defensive work is chronically under-funded (less visible to customers, harder to demo) until a quality-churn or scalability event forces a reactive surge. Boards should treat sustained zero or near-zero defensive allocation in a maturing product as a leading indicator of future quality issues — per the standard product-management argument (Marty Cagan and similar product-leadership writing), a healthy roadmap pays both growth and platform-health rent. — Product KPI, I'mBoard-authored (editorial tier).