Innovation Capacity %

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.

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.

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.

Ratio of net-new ARR generated in a period to R&D spend in the same period — answers "how much revenue does each R&D dollar produce?" Distinct from sales-efficiency metrics (Magic Number, CAC payback) which measure sales/marketing productivity. Common pitfall: R&D-driven ARR (new capabilities, expansion features) shows up on a 2–4 quarter lag after the spend — single-period ratios mis-state the relationship. Boards should look at trailing-twelve-month R&D efficiency, not month-over-month, and pair with `innovation_capacity_pct` to understand whether the spend is on growth bets or maintenance.

Percentage of committed deliverables shipped on or before the originally-promised date within a measurement window (typically a quarter). Surfaces whether the engineering organization can be trusted to hit commitments the company makes externally — to customers in contracts, to the board in quarterly plans, to GTM teams sequencing launches. Common pitfall: gaming. Teams over-deliver by under-promising (predictability climbs while velocity drops) or move the goalposts (re-baseline mid-quarter so "on-time" stays high). Boards should ask for "predictability against original commitment", not "against current plan", and pair with throughput trends.