OKR objective completion (YAMP Podcast episode)

Hey @mastrolinux I just listened to the YAML episode with you about OKRs Goals and OKRs with Luca Cipriani

Thanks for that! I found it valuable, and I would recommend it to anybody using OKRs. It’s fun to hear that you found a lot of similar things that I have found over the last few years applying OKRs, such as

  1. The importance of having “non-binary” key results (checkbox key results)
  2. The value of focusing on the end result, without dictating or committing to specific features to get there (allowing for continued team creativity and experimentation)

One thing I noticed you mentioning is that in your view completing all KRs to 100% should mean the objective is achieved. Personally I take a different approach on this. Generally I’m quite ok with a “infinite objective” like “Reduce friction of the QA process.” This type is obviously never achieved (unless it becomes 0, I suppose), but key results should get specific goals to move closer.

In my mind it’s perfectly fine for objectives to remain the same for quarters, even years, just the key results change (either the target numbers in the KRs, or the KRs in general).

Any opinion on this approach?

Hey, thanks for the feedback.

I am also running some OKR workshops lately with some companies and I am going more and more to the approach to avoid having recurring OKRs, I mean, there are better ways to track continuous improvements and that is more like a Project Management problem (maybe something like a Kanban board could solve).
In my opinion the missing letter in the OKR acronym is T, T stands for Time. An objective is valid and we need focus on it for a limited amount of time. Eventually we could have an overarching objective that is across the years even, that could cascade in smaller OKRs, and each of these OKRs is derived from a KR of the biggest one.

It is similar but philosophically different, I prefer to have 1 single big OKR, maybe lasting 1 year, and then multiple cascading OKRs instead of re-using the same objective and changing the KR (for me sounds like I am cheating).

So I have to diverge from your idea, but I got the value of what you mean, for the companies I worked with I found your approach risky because people could delay activities saying: “oh, this is also going to happen next cycle, we will do later than”. Last thing is motivation, people are happy once they completely finish something.

Thanks for sharing!