The company scorecard
17 metrics, deliberately. Decision 184/2023/QĐ-PTF — four perspectives, weighted. Ruthlessness here is the whole discipline — a company scorecard that lists forty metrics is a list, not a scorecard.
Are we balanced, or winning on one axis and blind on another?
People & Learning has no scorable metric — drawn as a gap in the web, not a zero. A zero would say the perspective is failing; the truth is that it is unmeasured, and those need opposite management actions.
Certification across all 140 metrics, not just Layer 1.
Tier colours are the certification palette, not RAG. 🔴 Manual is not bad performance — it is unverified measurement, and the design keeps those two ideas apart everywhere.
5 of 17 company metrics can be scored at all.
There is deliberately no single company score on this page. At 29% coverage one big number would be the most confident-looking lie a dashboard can tell. The radar and the bar above say the same thing honestly.
Where is the plan breaking?
The loss came in at 43.5% of the budgeted loss — but almost none of the improvement is operational.
Earnings quality: Management's OWN attribution: the beat came from lower and slower provisioning (63% of budget) and cost recognition (opex 70% of budget), not from revenue or operations. 12.9 of the 16.5 bn improvement is deferred spend, not earnings. Recoveries of written-off receivables (VND 2,095 mil) were booked as a REVENUE line, which flatters the first bar too. FN-10 (forecast accuracy) exists to stop this pattern being read as outperformance twice.
Which perspective is deteriorating — not just which is low today?
Blank cells are perspectives with no scorable metric in that month — not a score of zero.
3 exceptions on the company card.
- Cost-to-income ratio (CIR)No departmental parent — nobody can move it (Q-12)
- Provision expense vs budgetOff target
- Direct Disbursement Ratio (DDR)Regulatory threshold breached
What is the shape of the year, metric by metric?
The 17 metrics behind it
The dashboard above is a summary over this detail, never a replacement for it. Every value is one click from its definition, its owners and its lineage.
The FY2026 plan hangs on an ~83% provision cut
No Layer-3 parent in any department pack. Per 03 §16.2 this has no owner who can move it and should be challenged before it is published.
Already mapped — but reassign owner from IT to Sales (DEC-02)
Collapsed 62% → 25%; needs a decomposition, not just a number
Live SBV breach. Daily, with a hard threshold alert
With the two divergent definitions reconciled first
Each arrow is a hypothesis ACF is betting on, and each one is labelled with whether the data supports it. 3 of 9 are untested — never checked, not disproved. Drawing them all in one neutral colour would imply a chain of evidence that does not exist.
Perspective weights are Ikigai's reading of Decision 184/2023 applied at company level (T-01). ACF sets the actual weights; the arithmetic below re-runs unchanged when they do.