Build a roadmap

FY27 Product Roadmap: Path to 112% NRR

To: Tom Achebe (CEO), CFO, CRO, CTO From: Staff PM Subject: Pre-read: Proposed Q4 2026 – Q3 2027 Product Roadmap

---

1. The FY27 Roadmap (Q4 2026 – Q3 2027)

To hit 112% NRR by the end of Q3 2027, we need $6.88M in net expansion ARR (8% of our $86M base). Because expansion revenue only counts toward Q3 NRR if it is live, rolled out, and generating spend before the end of Q3, this roadmap front-loads our highest-conviction NRR drivers and protects our core card infrastructure.

Note on Capacity: Each existing squad has 11 squad-weeks (SW) per quarter. Cross-squad work incurs a 1.5× penalty (e.g., 4 SW of native work takes 6 SW for a borrowing squad). New squads are modeled using our historical hiring baselines: 6 months to onboard and 50% capacity (5.5 SW) in their first active quarter.

Q4 2026: Clear the Decks & Lock In Quick Wins

• Cards: Processor v2 Migration (11 of 18 SW). Outcome: Protect 58% of Harbor’s revenue ahead of the March 31 hard deadline.
• Approvals & Policy (A&P): Multi-Entity Support (10 of 10 SW). Outcome: Unlock $2.9M ARR subsidiary expansion pipeline.
• Platform: Multi-Entity Support (11 of 12 SW). Outcome: Same as above; ships in week 1 of Q1.
• Integrations: Sage Intacct Integration (9 of 9 SW). Outcome: Slash gross churn from 13% to ~7% across 17% of our customer base (~$880k ARR saved) and remove the blocker in 31% of lost new-logo deals.
• Expenses: Receipt-Matching Improvements (6 of 6 SW); begin Mobile App Rewrite (5 of 22 SW). Outcome: Cut our #1 support ticket driver to free up engineering on-call capacity; start retiring late-2027 mobile framework debt.

Q1 2027: Cutover v2 & Launch Multi-Entity

• Cards: Finish Processor v2 Migration (3 SW in Weeks 1–3), Freeze for Certification (Weeks 4–7), Cutover (Week 8). Start Virtual Cards for SaaS (8 of 10 SW, built on v2 environment). Outcome: Zero card downtime on March 31; pull Virtual Cards launch into early Q2.
• A&P: Assist Cards on Processor v2 Migration (6 SW = 4 native Cards SW in Weeks 1–6); Real-Time Spend Controls (4 of 4 native SW). Outcome: Crucial cross-squad assist ensures Cards hits the Feb 1 code freeze for v2 certification.
• Platform: Finish Multi-Entity (1 of 12 SW); SSO & SCIM Provisioning (5 of 5 SW); Multi-Entity customer onboarding & scale hardening (5 SW). Outcome: Ship Multi-Entity in January for immediate CS expansion selling; unlock $1.2M new-logo pipeline and protect 11 enterprise renewals.
• Integrations: Microsoft Dynamics Integration (11 of 12 SW). Outcome: Retain the 3% of base on Dynamics and remove the 8% new-logo blocker.
• Expenses: Mobile App Rewrite (11 of 22 SW). Outcome: Hit 73% completion on mobile debt retirement without hiring dependencies.

Q2 2027: Capture the $410M Card Spend Opportunity

• Cards: Finish Virtual Cards for SaaS (2 of 10 SW—Ships April); Real-Time Spend Controls (8 of 8 SW—Ships June). Outcome: Capture share of the $410M in off-Harbor software spend ($4.5M total interchange pool) requested by 43% of top customers; give 52% of top CFOs the point-of-sale controls needed to move remaining company spend to Harbor.
• A&P: Spend Controls integration support & policy templates (4 SW); Discovery & v2 Architecture for Light Vendor/PO Workflows (7 SW). Outcome: Ensure rapid adoption of Spend Controls; re-architect our procurement approach (see The Case below).
• Integrations: Finish Dynamics (1 of 12 SW); ERP syncing for Virtual Cards & Multi-Entity (10 SW). Outcome: Ensure seamless reconciliation for expanded multi-entity and SaaS card spend.
• Platform: Card spend limit notifications, alerting & multi-entity RBAC (11 SW). Outcome: Drive self-serve adoption of Virtual Cards across existing accounts.
• Expenses: Finish Mobile App Rewrite (6 of 22 SW—Ships May); Card spend receipt automation (5 SW). Outcome: Retire framework support risk 6 months ahead of CTO deadline.
• New Squad A (Ramping: 5.5 SW): Build self-serve migration tools for recurring SaaS bills to Virtual Cards. Outcome: Accelerate time-to-interchange for Virtual Cards.

Q3 2027: Drive Adoption to Lock In 112% NRR

• Cards & Platform: Automated SaaS vendor detection (flagging invoice spend in ERP to convert to Virtual Cards) & card limit auto-top-ups. Outcome: Maximize interchange realization before Q3 closes.
• A&P, New Squad A (11 SW) & New Squad B (5.5 SW): Build redesigned intake-to-card workflows (issuing single-use PO virtual cards upon approval). Outcome: Monetize approval workflows via interchange and seat expansion rather than competing head-on with entrenched procurement suites.
• Integrations & Expenses: In-app onboarding and bulk-provisioning tooling for Multi-Entity subsidiaries. Outcome: Help CS close the remaining 52 subsidiaries before EOY.

---

2. The Case for This Roadmap

Why This Order? (The Math to 112% NRR)

To add $6.88M in net ARR by the end of Q3 2027, we must prioritize high-margin revenue protection and high-velocity expansion that can land in H1 2027: 1. Stop the bleeding via Intacct & SSO (+$0.9M to $1.1M ARR retained): NRR is a net number; every dollar of churn avoided is a dollar of expansion we don't have to sell. 17% of our base (~$14.6M ARR) uses Intacct via CSV and churns at 13% vs. 7% for NetSuite. Fixing this in Q4 saves ~$880k/yr in gross churn and unlocks 31% of lost deals. Pairing this with SSO/SCIM in Q1 secures 11 enterprise accounts under security review. 2. Ship Multi-Entity in week 1 of Q1 (+$1.8M to $2.9M ARR): 9 top customers have committed in writing to add subsidiaries once live. Sizing all 52 subsidiaries in the top-60 cohort equals $2.9M ARR—and more exist across our other 1,040 customers. Shipping in January gives CS three full quarters to close and onboard these entities. 3. Unleash Card Spend in Q2 (+$2.5M to $3.5M ARR): Our customers spend $410M/yr on software off-Harbor. At 1.1% net interchange, that is a $4.51M high-margin revenue pool sitting inside our existing base. Nearly half (26 of 60) of our largest accounts are actively asking for Virtual Cards for subscriptions, and 31 CFOs want Real-Time Spend Controls. Unlike new modules that require procurement cycles and legal sign-off, turning on virtual cards for existing customers generates interchange revenue the day a card is swiped.

Combined with our baseline 104% NRR ($3.44M), capturing just half of our conservative targets across these three pillars puts us at 112.5% NRR ($96.8M ARR) by Q3.

What Changed from Tom’s Draft—and Why

1. Resolving the March 31 Card Processor Crisis Tom’s draft had the Cards squad doing the 18-SW v2 migration across Q4 and Q1. However, Cards only has 11 SW per quarter. Furthermore, the processor requires a 4-week certification freeze before the March 31 cutover. To cut over by March 31, code must be finished by February 26 (Week 8 of Q1). In 19 weeks of calendar time, the Cards squad only has ~17.5 SW of capacity—leaving zero margin for error and pushing Virtual Cards into late Q2/Q3. * The Fix: In Q1, Approvals & Policy gives 6 SW of capacity (yielding 4 native SW at the 1.5× cross-squad rate) to the Cards team. This finishes all 18 SW of v2 code by the end of January, allowing certification in February, safe cutover in early March, and pulling Virtual Cards forward by 6 weeks.

2. Replacing the $6M Procurement Bet with Card Expansion Tom’s draft relies on Procurement to add $6M ARR in year one. The customer and capacity math does not support this: * The Revenue Math: At $8/month ($96/yr) for the 10% of employees who raise purchase requests (70 users per average 700-person customer), 100% adoption across all 1,100 customers would only generate $7.39M ARR. To hit $6M in Year 1, we would have to sell an unbuilt add-on to 81% of our entire customer base in two quarters. Yet in our design partner trial, 4 of 6 customers already had a procurement tool and refused to switch, and only 2 (33%) were willing to pay. Realistic Year-1 ARR is ~$500k–$900k. * The Capacity Math: Procurement requires 30 SW from A&P and 6 SW from Integrations. Tom assigned this to "New Squad A" starting in Q1. Last year, our new squads took 5 to 8 months to reach their first sprint, and delivered 50% capacity in their first quarter. Approved in September, Squad A won't run a sprint until Q2 2027 (delivering ~5.5 SW), and as a brand-new squad working in A&P's domain, they face the 1.5× ramp penalty. Assigned to Squad A, a 36-SW Procurement module would not ship until Q1 2028—contributing $0 to FY27 NRR.

3. De-risking the Mobile App Rewrite Tom assigned the 22-SW Mobile Rewrite to "New Squad B" in Q2. Approved in September, Squad B likely won't start until Q3 2027 at half capacity (5.5 SW), missing the CTO’s late-2027 framework end-of-life deadline. By keeping our existing Expenses squad on Mobile starting in Q4 (after a 6-SW sprint on Receipt Matching), we complete the rewrite in Q2 2027 with zero hiring dependency.

What We Are Not Doing

• We are not building a standalone, 36-SW Procurement Module in H1. We cannot justify starving Multi-Entity and Spend Controls to build a module that 67% of design partners rejected and that cannot ship in time to impact FY27 NRR. Instead, in Q2/Q3, we will explore lightweight PO-to-Virtual-Card workflows that drive card spend rather than competing with Coupa or Zip.
• We are not counting on un-hired squads for critical-path H1 deliverables. New Squads A and B are scheduled for Q2 and Q3 respectively, focused on adoption tooling and H2 expansion where hiring delays won't threaten our board target or infrastructure deadlines.

Key Risks That Could Change This Plan

1. Processor v2 Certification Rejections: If the processor finds bugs during the 4-week February certification window, our freeze extends and delays Virtual Cards. Mitigation: By using A&P to help finish the build in January, we buy a 4-week buffer before the March 31 cliff.
2. Cross-Squad Ramp Friction: Having A&P take on 4 SW of Cards work (costing 6 SW) in Q1 requires clean work partitioning. Mitigation: Cards will own the core v2 authorization webhooks; A&P will own isolated migration scripts and fallback testing.
3. Slower Multi-Entity Sales Cycles: While 9 accounts gave written intent, parent-subsidiary contract addendums can stall in legal. Mitigation: CS and Finance must pre-negotiate subsidiary pricing addendums with the 14 target accounts in Q4 so we can bill immediately upon the January release.

Harbor FY27 roadmap — Q4 2026 to Q3 2027

Planning basis: Each existing squad has about 11 roadmap squad-weeks per quarter. Figures below are the candidate-work estimates; capacity not assigned to a feature is deliberately held for launch, customer activation, fixes and contingency. New squads are not counted at full capacity until their ramp is proven.

New Squads A and B: Plan for onboarding and ramp, not full feature capacity. When productive, use them for bounded rollout, quality or activation work. No committed launch depends on their availability.

Case for the plan

Why this order

The board’s priority is to move NRR from 104% to 112% by the end of Q3, primarily through expansion in existing customers. The plan therefore favors credible opportunities to retain customers or deepen their use of Harbor, while keeping some room for new-logo needs.

First, v2 is a hard dependency and a hard deadline. All authorisations still run through v1, which retires on 31 March. The 18 Cards squad-weeks consume 11 weeks in Q4 and seven in Q1. That leaves time to finish implementation before the processor’s four-week certification and to keep the required freeze during testing. Virtual cards and real-time controls must wait until certification is complete.

Next, multi-entity has concrete expansion evidence: 14 of the 60 largest customers asked, and nine have said in writing that they would add subsidiaries. The $2.9M ARR estimate assumes all 52 subsidiaries join, so it is an upside case, not a commitment. Completing the Platform and Approvals & Policy work across Q4 and Q1 creates a path to test that demand with real rollouts.

Virtual cards are the first post-migration Cards feature because 26 large customers asked for them and Finance estimates $410M of annual subscription spend is currently elsewhere. At Harbor’s 1.1% net interchange, full capture would represent about $4.5M in annual interchange revenue, but that is a ceiling, not a forecast: the spend estimate is extrapolated, and adoption and capture are unknown. Real-time controls follow, with coordinated work across Cards and Approvals & Policy. The 31 CFO requests are strong demand evidence, but the plan avoids trying to fit both features into Cards’ 11-week quarterly capacity.

Intacct comes before Dynamics. Intacct is used by 17% of customers through CSV, and those customers have higher observed gross revenue churn than customers on NetSuite. That comparison is correlational, but it supports addressing a retention risk. Dynamics has lower existing use (3%) and a more limited new-logo case, but the 8% of lost deals citing it justifies completing the 12-week integration after Intacct.

SSO/SCIM is a relatively small, five-week Platform investment tied to five enterprise deals representing $1.2M of pipeline and 11 existing security reviews. It supports commercial outcomes without displacing the larger expansion bets.

What changed from Tom’s draft

• Removed procurement from committed build and launch. Six design partners are not enough evidence for the board’s $6M first-year ARR claim: only two said they would pay, and four already use another tool. At the proposed price, an average 700-employee customer would generate about $6,720 ARR if 10% of employees were buyers. Reaching $6M would require roughly 893 such customer equivalents. We should validate willingness to switch and pricing before committing 30 Approvals & Policy and six Integrations squad-weeks.
• Corrected the hiring assumption. Prior squads took five to eight months from approval to a first full sprint and delivered about half capacity in their first quarter. The plan does not count either new squad at full capacity in Q1 or Q2, or make a feature dependent on them.
• Made the v2 critical path explicit. The migration spans Q4 and Q1, with implementation targeted ahead of March certification. Tom’s draft did not protect that freeze clearly enough.
• Sequenced Cards work to fit capacity. Virtual cards and real-time controls require 18 Cards squad-weeks together, more than one quarter’s 11-week capacity. They are sequenced across Q2 and Q3.
• Started the mobile rewrite with the existing Expenses squad. The work is 22 weeks, so starting in Q1 targets completion in Q2 without relying on an unproven new squad.

What we are not doing

We are not committing to build procurement, starting a mobile rewrite with a new squad at assumed full capacity, or taking on another major integration or platform feature in Q3 without evidence from the launches above. New-logo work remains in the plan, but expansion and retention come first.

Risks that could change the plan

• Processor timing: Any migration slip puts card authorisations at risk. Track delivery and certification weekly; protect the Q1 card schedule and do not pull dependent features forward.
• Expansion may not materialize: Multi-entity interest and card requests do not guarantee adoption or spend migration. Track subsidiary activation, card spend moved, and controls usage—not just releases.
• Commercial estimates are uncertain: The $2.9M multi-entity estimate and $4.5M card-spend ceiling are not forecasts. Procurement’s $6M claim is especially unsupported by current evidence.
• Mobile has little slack: The 22-week rewrite fills two quarters of Expenses capacity. Scope growth, delivery delays or an earlier-than-expected framework deadline would require replanning.
• Hiring, integration and cross-squad delivery may slip: Ramp timing is uncertain; the Intacct churn difference may not be caused by the integration; and spend controls depend on coordinated Cards and Approvals & Policy work.

This roadmap gives Harbor credible bets aligned to the NRR goal, but it does not establish that the 112% target is guaranteed. We should review expansion and retention indicators at each quarterly planning checkpoint and change the plan if customer evidence or delivery risk materially shifts.

Part 1: Roadmap, Q4 2026 to Q3 2027

Planning basis: Five existing squads at 11 squad-weeks a quarter (55 a quarter). The two new squads are counted as zero in the commitments (see the case). Lending between squads is costed at 1.5×. Figures in brackets are squad-weeks of the named squad.

Q4 2026: Protect the card rail, start entities

Q1 2027: Cut over, ship entities, start controls

Q2 2027: Virtual cards, procurement beta

Q3 2027: Launch and land

About 60 of 220 squad-weeks are deliberately uncommitted, mostly in Q3.

---

Part 2: The case (≈1,150 words)

The short version

The order is set by one thing we can't negotiate and by the evidence for everything else. The processor retires v1 on 31 March, every authorisation runs through it, and interchange is 58% of revenue. Cards does nothing else until cutover. After that, work is ordered by evidence and cost per squad-week.

The plan gets our exit run-rate to roughly 109–111% NRR, not reliably 112%. We should tell the board that now rather than in Q3.

Why this order

1. v2 first, with real slack. Tom's draft has Cards doing 18 weeks at 11 a quarter, so build finishes around late February. Four weeks of certification then ends around 25 March, about a week before a deadline that would stop all card authorisation. My plan ring-fences Cards in Q4 and has Integrations, which does API work daily, lend 6 weeks (≈4 Cards-weeks). Code is complete in late January, certification runs in February, and we keep about five weeks of slack.

2. Multi-entity next. It has the best evidence we hold. Nine of 14 requesting customers said in writing they'd add subsidiaries, which means ~33 of the 52 subsidiaries, or ~$1.9M ARR. Customer Success's $2.9M assumes all 52 join. The cost is 22 weeks, and it is a direct "more entities" lever.

3. Intacct, then SSO. 17% of customers (~187) use Intacct via CSV and churn at 13% against 7% on NetSuite. If the integration closes that gap, it retains ~$0.9M a year for 9 weeks of work. That assumes average ARR of $78k and that the gap is causal, which is unproven. Intacct also appears in 31% of lost deals. SSO and SCIM costs 5 weeks and covers $1.2M of pipeline plus 11 existing accounts' security reviews. Dynamics is 12 weeks for 3% of customers and 8% of lost deals, and it serves new-logo growth, so it is stretch.

4. Controls before virtual cards. Both need v2 live, so both follow cutover. 31 CFOs asked for real-time controls against 26 for virtual cards. The 4 Approvals & Policy weeks for controls fit in Q1, before procurement takes that squad's capacity. Virtual cards is the only card item we can size: $410M × 10–25% capture × 1.1% ≈ $0.5–1.1M. The $410M is extrapolated from our 60 largest accounts, so it is probably high. This is a judgment call. Swapping the order is cheap, but the Approvals & Policy slot would collide with the procurement build.

5. Procurement: build it, resize the promise. At $8 × 10% of a 700-person company's employees, a customer pays $6,720 a year. Even 100% attach across 1,100 customers is $7.4M, so $6M needs ~890 customers (81%). Two of six design partners would pay (33%), and four already own a procurement tool. At 10–33% attach, year-one ARR is $0.7–2.5M, and with GA in Q3 only a small part lands before Q3 ends. It is still worth building: it is our only new paid module, it recurs, and it matches the board's "more modules" lever. But it is not a path to 112% on its own.

The arithmetic: 8 points of NRR on $86M is ~$6.9M. Sized items total roughly $4–6M of exit run-rate: entities $1.9M, Intacct $0.9M, virtual cards $0.5–1.1M, and procurement $0.7–2.5M (mostly after Q3). Controls and SSO retention are unsized upside. Recognised NRR at Q3 will lag run-rate because late launches haven't ramped.

What I changed from Tom's draft

• New squads count as zero. Last year's three squads took 5, 6 and 8 months from approval to first full sprint, then delivered half capacity in their first quarter. From a September approval, squad A is likely in seat between February and May and squad B later. A realistic ~5 weeks in Q2 and ~11 in Q3 for A, plus ~5 in Q3 for B, is about 22 weeks, against 55 in the draft. Even at Tom's capacity, procurement (36 weeks) couldn't launch in Q2, because squad A would have 22 weeks by the end of Q2.
• Procurement moves to Approvals & Policy. They own the domain and, in the draft, have no work after Q4. Expenses and Platform lend 9 weeks each (≈6 A&P-weeks each) to get a beta by the end of Q2 and GA in Q3. New squads join as upside.
• Mobile moves to Expenses. The draft puts it on squad B, which may not exist until Q3. Expenses has ~38 uncommitted weeks, and the rewrite ships in Q3, ahead of the late-2027 framework cutoff.
• Controls before virtual cards (point 4 above).
• Intacct GA moves from Q4 to Q1 to fund the v2 help. The cost is roughly one quarter of a ~$0.9M-a-year benefit, about $0.2M.
• Q3's "everyone else: adoption" is replaced by a held reserve, because adoption isn't squad work and Q3 launches can't move FY27 NRR much.
• A procurement checkpoint is added at the end of Q1 (see risks).

What we're not doing

• Dynamics, beyond a stretch start in Q2–Q3.
• A Q2 procurement launch, or putting the $6M figure in front of the board.
• Any new Cards scope before cutover.
• A mobile rewrite staffed by a squad that doesn't exist yet.
• Planning on capacity from squads we haven't hired.

Risks that could change the plan

1. Processor timeline. If v2 isn't code-complete by 31 January, Platform joins Cards and controls and virtual cards slip a quarter. Two asks for this month: a written fallback or extension from the processor, and confirmation that feature work behind flags is allowed during the certification freeze (my assumption). Book the certification slot now.
2. Procurement demand. At the end-of-Q1 gate I propose requiring at least 10 signed paid commitments at $8 from ~30 accounts approached (≈$67k ARR). If we miss it, we cut scope and redirect Approvals & Policy and the lenders to multi-entity rollout and card-spend work. The threshold is my proposal and is open to debate.
3. The NRR target itself. Exec decision: hold 112% as a Q3 recognised-NRR target, or restate it as an exit run-rate target, which I think is achievable only with upside from controls and procurement.
4. Evidence quality. The $410M is extrapolated from our largest accounts. The Intacct churn gap is a correlation. The multi-entity sizing rests on 14 of 60 customers. Any could be off by a factor of two.
5. Lending efficiency. The 1.5× penalty is an average. Expenses and Platform have less procurement context, and if they're slower than assumed, GA slips into Q4.
6. Hiring. If squad A lands in February, procurement GA can move earlier. If squad B lands late, nothing in the plan changes.
7. Mobile date. The CTO should confirm the exact end-of-support date and whether an in-place upgrade avoids a 22-week rewrite. Q4's scoping work answers this.