I'mBoard API Docs

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.

Calculation policy

How an AI agent should compute this KPI from messy company data. Free-text rules consumed at reasoning time — not a deterministic DSL. The most common ways to get this wrong are listed under Common miscomputations.

Inclusion rules

Share of planned roadmap capacity allocated to CUSTOMER COMMITMENTS — contractually or relationship-committed deliverables (e.g. enterprise SCIM / audit-log promises, contractual feature commitments).
Same denominator (total planned roadmap capacity for the horizon) and unit as the offensive and defensive slices — the third slice that completes the roadmap-mix bar.
Classify each roadmap item to exactly ONE of the three intent slices.

Exclusion rules

Net-new market-expansion / differentiation bets the company chose for strategy — product.offensive_roadmap_pct (uncommitted strategic work is offensive even if a customer would welcome it).
Reliability / security / parity / retention work not tied to a specific contractual commitment — product.defensive_roadmap_pct.
Internal delivery commitments to the board / GTM that are not customer-contractual — keep this slice to customer-committed work, or define the boundary explicitly and hold it.

Required inputs

Classified roadmap item list with per-item capacity.
The register of contractual / relationship commitments driving roadmap items (from sales / CS).
The horizon definition.

Data-source priority

Roadmap planning tool with a "committed" tag linked to the contract / deal.
Sales / CS commitment register cross-referenced to roadmap items.
PM classification when the link is not modeled.

Edge cases

A committed deliverable that also serves the broader market: classify by what drove it onto the roadmap (the commitment), but note the dual benefit.
Commitments work going untracked makes the roadmap look more offensive than it is — surface it as its own slice rather than folding it into offense.
Re-baselining: recompute all three slices together so they still sum to 100%.

Validation checks

offensive + defensive + commitments must sum to ~100% over the fully-classified roadmap — a missing or double-counted commitments slice is the usual reason the bar does not close to 100%.
A rising commitments share that crowds out offensive work signals the roadmap is increasingly driven by deal-by-deal promises rather than product strategy.
Do not reconcile against product.capacity_allocation_pct — that is the work-type partition, a different denominator.

Common miscomputations

Leaving commitments untracked (folded into offense) so the roadmap looks more strategic than it is — the exact gap this slice exists to close.
Mixing customer-contractual commitments with internal board / GTM delivery commitments without defining the boundary.
Letting the three slices fail to sum to 100% because the commitments slice was omitted.

product.offensive_roadmap_pct
product.defensive_roadmap_pct
product.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.