Page 1 of 3 · the outcome Sustaining portfolio scoreboard · August 2026
Where this began

“Convert to the most succinct and actionable views... the basis of future monthly Enterprise Reviews.”

Harsh Kachhy, January 3, 2025

This is the disciplined form of the scoreboard Harsh asked for in January 2025.

The last report ran for two and a half years. Nobody noticed it stopped.

Reporting was never the outcome. Better decisions are.

The outcome, stated

Every quarter, this group decides eight things about the sustaining portfolio, on evidence instead of anecdote.

Correct it

If you would say it differently, write your version on the line below. We build from your sentence.

We start here Monday, August 17, 10 am ET

Three of the eight have no owner today
01 Continue, pause, or kill
Which sustaining projects stop consuming resources?
03 Escalation of absorbed impact
What should no longer be absorbed quietly across business units?
05 Cost-improvement target
What is the annual target, and what closes the gap?

Page 2 carries all eight, with the line where each one gets settled today.

What counts as data

A measure earns a place only if it would change one of the eight, and can be produced from data that exists today.

How it shows up

A monthly dashboard leaders read on their own time. A quarterly hour spent only on what needs a decision.

1 · The outcome 2 · The eight decisions 3 · The twelve measures Dark Horse Works
Page 2 of 3 · the decisions Sustaining portfolio scoreboard · August 2026

Three of these eight decisions have no owner today

The decisions Harsh’s 2025 “Big Questions” were driving at, made explicit.

The list is the yardstick for every candidate measure: one that would not change any of these gets documented and retired. The three that no one owns today are marked.

The decision The question it settles Where it gets settled today
01 Continue, pause, or kill
No owner
Which sustaining projects stop consuming resources? No forum. Savings are still claimed against canceled projects.
02 Resource shifts across business units Where does constrained engineering and regulatory capacity move next quarter, and at whose expense? Settled business unit to business unit, case by case.
03 Escalation of absorbed impact
No owner
What should no longer be absorbed quietly across business units? Absorbed, not decided. Real impact, and no measure caught it.
04 Backfill and capacity commitments Does workload evidence justify filling open roles, or shifting scope instead? Argued role by role, without workload evidence.
05 Cost-improvement target commitment
No owner
What is the annual target, and what closes the gap when the pipeline underruns it? This year’s target was still unagreed in July.
06 Obsolescence and supplier-risk posture Which known time-bombs get funded proactively, and which are accepted as reactive risk? Decided when a supplier forces the timing.
07 Standard-setting Does a practice proven in one business unit become the RemainCo standard, and on what schedule? Spreads by example, or does not spread.
08 Prior-commitment accountability What did the room decide last quarter, and did it happen? Revisited informally, when someone remembers to ask.
Your additions

Not owned here: individual project management, which business-unit leads own; monthly status absorption, which the dashboards own; and build and tooling choices, which the build owner and IT own.

Correct this list

Cross out what your room does not own, write in what is missing, and mark any “today” line that reads wrong. It is our reading, not yours.

We work from your version Monday, August 17, 10 am ET

1 · The outcome 2 · The eight decisions 3 · The twelve measures Dark Horse Works
Page 3 of 3 · the measures Sustaining portfolio scoreboard · August 2026

Four of the twelve candidate measures are reachable from data in hand

Two in direction and delivery, two in risk. Enough to run a credible first quarterly this year. Of the other eight, four need one defined step and four wait on a linkage never traced end to end.

Legend Now, from data in hand Step, needs one defined step Build, gated on the SKU linkage
Candidate measure Decision # Data Origin
A · Direction and delivery · are we getting better?
M1 Portfolio completion velocity
“Improve ratio of completed to active projects, 6% to 10%.”
01 · 02 Now Harsh 2025
M2 Aging and backlog trend 01 · 04 Now Harsh 2025
M3 Cycle time by project class
“Improve on-time completion, 40% to 60%, on A/B/C projects.”
04 · 07 Step Harsh 2025
M4 Recurrence rate after close 03 · 06 Step New
B · Risk and anticipation · what is coming?
M5 At-risk project exposure, risk-weighted 01 · 02 Step Harsh 2025
M6 Supplier and obsolescence exposure 06 Now Harsh 2025
M7 Compliance and CAPA-linked strain 03 · 06 Now Harsh 2025
M8 Absorbed-impact watch 03 Build
C · Capacity and value · can we take on more?
M9 Reactive versus proactive load split 02 · 04 Step Harsh 2025
M10 Margin-improvement pipeline 05 Build Harsh 2025
M11 Realized margin improvement 05 · 08 Build Harsh 2025
D · Financial · where this lands
M12 Cost of sustaining, and impacted-SKU revenue at risk 01 · 05 · 06 Build Harsh 2025
Your measures
Add to this table

Write your KPIs into the open rows, on our two tests: it changes one of the eight, and it comes from data that exists today. Cross out any you would retire.

We work from your version Monday, August 17, 10 am ET

Dollars · in the first review

Twenty projects traced by hand from record to impacted SKU to the financial system. Whatever traces cleanly is stated as a number, with its range.

Dollars · on the headline

Once the linkage proves out in the closest business unit, cost of sustaining and revenue at risk join the headline set.

1 · The outcome 2 · The eight decisions 3 · The twelve measures Dark Horse Works