“Are we on track?” is the most common question in a launch, and the answer is often a feeling dressed up as a status.
Why a gut call is not enough
Different people read the same plan differently. One lead sees risk, another sees buffer. Without a shared formula, launch reviews become debates about opinion instead of decisions about work.
The inputs that matter
- Critical-path slack: how many days the launch can absorb before its date moves.
- Open risks: tasks flagged at risk, weighted by whether they sit on the critical path.
- Overdue work: tasks past due that are not done.
From inputs to a state
Combine the inputs into three states, On track, At risk, and Off track, plus a confidence figure. Zero slack with open risks on the critical path is at risk even if nothing is late yet.
Make it repeatable
The formula should be written down, its weights documented, and its behaviour covered by tests. The same inputs must always give the same output. That is what lets a team trust the number and argue about the work instead.
Explain it in words
A number alone invites questions. Pair it with a plain-language summary of what is slipping and why, with each claim linked to its evidence.
A simple starting formula
If you are building your own, start simple and make it explicit. For example: off track if the critical path finishes after the launch date; at risk if critical-path slack is under a set number of days or a critical task is flagged at risk; otherwise on track. Lower confidence for each open risk and each overdue task. Write the rules down and keep them under test.
Common mistakes
- Letting a model decide the score. Generated numbers are hard to check and change between runs.
- Counting all risks equally. A risk off the critical path matters less than one on it.
- Hiding the inputs. If people cannot see why the launch is at risk, they will argue with the number.
Keel computes launch health this way and explains it with sources. See launch health.
