Growth & Differentiation %
Percentage of the planned roadmap (typically next 1–2 quarters) allocated to offensive bets — net-new capabilities, market expansion, differentiation moats, new monetization. The "what proportion of the plan is about winning" view. Common pitfall: counting "improvements to existing features" as offensive when the change is really table-stakes parity work. Boards should expect a McKinsey-style horizon framing (Horizon 1 = core, Horizon 2 = adjacent, Horizon 3 = transformational) or an equivalent classification, and apply it consistently. Per the original McKinsey "Three Horizons" framing (Baghai/Coley/White, "The Alchemy of Growth", 1999), a healthy portfolio funds all three — over-indexing on any one is a strategic risk. — 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.offensive_roadmap_pct
Type: Percentage (%)
Domain: Product
Definition
Percentage of the planned roadmap (typically next 1–2 quarters) allocated to offensive bets — net-new capabilities, market expansion, differentiation moats, new monetization. The "what proportion of the plan is about winning" view. Common pitfall: counting "improvements to existing features" as offensive when the change is really table-stakes parity work. Boards should expect a McKinsey-style horizon framing (Horizon 1 = core, Horizon 2 = adjacent, Horizon 3 = transformational) or an equivalent classification, and apply it consistently. Per the original McKinsey "Three Horizons" framing (Baghai/Coley/White, "The Alchemy of Growth", 1999), a healthy portfolio funds all three — over-indexing on any one is a strategic risk.
Formula
offensive_roadmap_pct = (roadmap_capacity_allocated_to_offensive_initiatives / total_roadmap_capacity) × 100, where "offensive" includes net-new capabilities, market-expansion work, differentiation features, and new monetization. Complement of `defensive_roadmap_pct` (they should sum to ~100% in a fully-classified roadmap).Why it matters
Encodes the company's strategic posture in one number. Boards use this to check the roadmap against the strategy narrative — a company saying it is "going on offense" while showing a 30% offensive roadmap has a story-versus-execution gap worth flagging.
How to interpret
Industry folk-wisdom, not citation-grade: 50–70% offensive in growth-stage companies pursuing market expansion; 30–50% in companies stabilizing a platform; below 30% in turnaround / harden-the-base modes. Pair with defensive_roadmap_pct and innovation_capacity_pct — strategic offense requires both intent (this metric) and available bandwidth (innovation capacity). The right number is stage-, market-, and strategy-dependent — the trend and the stated rationale matter more than the absolute level.
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 (typically the next 1–2 quarters) allocated to offensive bets — net-new capabilities, market expansion, differentiation moats, new monetization.
- Denominator is total planned roadmap capacity for the same horizon, measured in the same unit as the other two slices (eng-weeks, story points, or sprint capacity).
- Classify each roadmap item to exactly ONE of the three intent slices (offensive / defensive / commitments) so they are mutually exclusive.
Exclusion rules
- Table-stakes parity / reliability / security / scalability work — that is
product.defensive_roadmap_pct. - Contractually or relationship-committed deliverables — that is
product.commitments_roadmap_pct. - "Improvements to existing features" that are really parity work — do not misclassify as offensive.
- The new-features / maintenance / tech-debt work-type split — that is the separate
product.capacity_allocation_pctpartition with a different denominator (all engineering capacity, not roadmap capacity).
Required inputs
- Roadmap item list for the horizon, each classified offensive / defensive / commitments.
- A capacity estimate per item in a single consistent unit.
- The horizon definition (which quarters the plan covers).
Data-source priority
- Product / roadmap planning tool with per-item capacity and a strategic-intent tag.
- PM + engineering classification when the tool does not tag intent.
- Board strategy narrative as a consistency check on the offensive share.
Edge cases
- A single item spanning offense and defense (e.g. a re-platform that also ships a new capability): split its capacity across slices rather than forcing one label.
- Re-baselining mid-horizon: recompute all three slices together so they still sum to 100%.
- Unclassified backlog: do not silently drop it from the denominator — classify it or exclude it explicitly.
Validation checks
product.offensive_roadmap_pct+product.defensive_roadmap_pct+product.commitments_roadmap_pctmust sum to ~100% over a fully-classified roadmap (the three are a mutually-exclusive partition of one denominator) — a sum materially off 100% means items are unclassified or double-counted.- Check the offensive share against the stated strategy: a company "going on offense" while showing a 30% offensive roadmap has a story-vs-execution gap worth flagging.
- This roadmap-intent partition is distinct from the
product.capacity_allocation_pctwork-type partition — do not expect the two to reconcile to each other.
Common miscomputations
- Counting parity / table-stakes work as offensive — inflates the growth narrative.
- Mixing the roadmap-intent denominator with the capacity-allocation (new-features / maintenance / tech-debt) denominator.
- Leaving backlog unclassified so the three slices do not sum to 100%.
Related KPIs
product.defensive_roadmap_pctproduct.innovation_capacity_pctproduct.portfolio_strategyproduct.feature_adoptionproduct.key_initiatives_status
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/offensive_roadmap_pct.json - All Product KPIs:
/api/ontology/product.json - Full catalog:
/api/ontology/index.json
Key Initiatives Status
Stoplight-plus-narrative status of the strategic product initiatives committed for the current quarter / half — each initiative ideally tagged on-track / at-risk / blocked / shipped, with a one-line explanation. The execution-pulse view that connects strategy intent to delivery reality. Common pitfall: every initiative defaults to "on track" until two weeks before the deadline, then turns red — a board that only sees binary green-or-red status without intermediate "at-risk" signaling is being managed reactively. Pair with `delivery_predictability` to detect this pattern; require at-risk initiatives to surface a mitigation plan, not just a label. — Product KPI, I'mBoard-authored (editorial tier).
Product Portfolio
Container handle for the field-array of products in the portfolio — each entry tracks the product name, its portfolio classification (e.g. growth engine / cash cow / innovation bet / sunset candidate, or Horizon 1/2/3), ARR contribution, investment thesis, and lifecycle stage. The structured, per-product companion to the `product.portfolio_strategy` narrative: the narrative tells the story, this gallery makes each product line individually visible and trackable. Renders via the CollapsibleFormItemCardGallery widget (the reused gallery pattern shared with sales pipeline deals and HR key hires / openings). Common pitfall: a portfolio gallery that lists products without an explicit classification or investment thesis per item — that is an inventory, not a portfolio. — Product KPI, I'mBoard-authored (editorial tier).