Some virtual scribbles from an @Amplitude_HQ session today on OKRs, North Stars, etc.
First, we need to make a distinction between things that say relatively stable, and things that change more often...like every quarter. (1/8)
A great product strategy creates the foundation for long-term success. It is customer lifetime value focused... not chasing short-term revenue, silver bullets, and success theater
A great product strategy hopefully stays more stable. It persists (2/8)
Put another way ... in #1 below we chase short term revenue, but fail to build a sustainable, meaningful biz. In #2, we might focus on happy customers, which we believe will lead to long term success (3/8)
We have a decision making framework (that encompasses our beliefs, assumptions, data, view of the landscape, etc.) ... and hopefully that stays relatively stable, and then we have our actual decisions that have an element of time, tacking back and forth, pivoting... (4/8)
Anyway. How does this relate to OKRs? For many, quarter planning is basically quarter packing ... how much crap can we fit in a quarter and still make our “commitments”. If this is your mindset, OKRs are not your friend. They weren’t designed to help you do this. (5/8)
Now, say we have our decision framework that persists with a North Star and some inputs. Our goal is to move A from where it is today, to some higher level in the future. Sure we’ll try a lot of “work” to make that happen but the important thing is that we’re focusing on A. (6/8)
Note how this is different from OKRs in many orgs where teams are scrambling for more context, and feel like they’re “starting from scratch each quarter”.
In the above example, a team has a mission to move A bc A is important. And they’ll spend multiple quarters doing so (7/8)
So that’s the lesson ... OKRs are great, but you need, in parallel, a model that persists that explains your product strategy. Ideally with inputs. Ideally that is a leading indicator of sustainable growth and making humans happy. (8/8)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The “messy middle” problems is one of the biggest impediments to product success. Here’s what it looks like:
The strategy and vision is somewhat clear.
Teams have specific features they’re working on.
But there’s nothing in between.
Why does it matter? 1/n
High level visions and strategies are helpful, but they lack the specificity to guide teams.
Specific project-based roadmaps feel “actionable” but they are very fragile—they don’t inspire aligned autonomy.
You need a linking mechanism 2/n
Some teams use goal cascades
The problem is the classic MBO problem: goals get more specific & prescriptive as you move down the stack. And by definition they should be “time bound”.
They too are fragile and foster “figure out what you want to build AND THEN tack on goals” 3/n
I was reading the transcript of a work presentation. Then I watched the presentation.
The transcript was filled with issues / logical fallacies / open questions.
While watching I noticed very few.
I think this is the root issue with presentation culture.
I noticed different parts of my brain firing in each context. When slides had lots of “stuff” it felt like a sense of “oh they’ve figured this out” even when the words did not match.
If you pay attention you can feel this happening.
The confident voice of the presenter made the “three focus areas” feel certain, clear, and logical.
In writing it felt incoherent.
I guess this is a point for “a compelling visual” but still it’s interesting.
Your team is burnt out. They are not getting anything done. Work is "low quality". You can see and feel those things.
But what you are seeing is an output of something—the downstream effects of other things happening.
In some companies this is a black box
1/n
…they don’t have visibility into what’s happening.
But it is not that simple (of course).
The outputs are inputs into the black box. And the outputs input into the inputs.
2/n
Say the team reactively addresses quality issues.
This creates more “work” (the output inputs into the input), but it also leaves the team more burnt out and they make less-good decisions on whatever is going on in the box.
3/n