Now that OKRs are a checkbox item in many digital transformation efforts, I wanted to share some observations from working with customers/future customers at @Amplitude_HQ
1/n: You can't OKR your way into a strategy. OKRs aren't a strategy. They "deploy" a strategy
2/n
You can't OKR your way into contextual awareness.
OKRs are a time-bound goal setting framework. Not a framework for surfacing assumptions, beliefs, hypotheses, etc.
They are an *output* of those things. Not an input.
3/n
It is very important to distinguish between "persistent models" and time-based goals. They are complimentary, however. One creates the foundation for the other.
So many teams are tacking OKRs on to roadmap items, vs. *starting* with a sense of what is important.
4/n
Here is a graceful example of an OKR that spans context and Bet.
This team wants to capture key goals in an onboarding workflow.
Note how one of the Rs refers to the Bet. Another R relates to Project Matching Success Rate which is stable/persistent.
5/n
Say this team wants to improve Activated Accounts (AAs) and focus on Onboarding Efficacy (OE).
They dream up a Bet to surface charts during onboarding.
The OKR can be:
* movement in AAs
* movement in OE
* Bet specific metrics (Chart Interactions)
6/n
Starting with OKRs is a bit like working backwards into practices and good habits. I mean it can work. People figure things out. But they also risk stalling.
Another approach is to work forwards with The Basics
Each team should have a
* mission
* some sense of a persistent model
* some core dashboards that cover that model
* a roadmap of bets (ideally not PRDs)
And dedicated time to REVIEW what's happening.
9/n
It's important to keep in mind what OKRs are for ... and not for.
They are FOR:
Alignment
Focused ambition
Shared understanding
Collective commitment
Learning & reflection
Not FOR:
Perf. management
Individual commitment
Bolted on to projects
Avoiding communication
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