Pitfall 6: KR is not enough to achieve
Posted: Thu Feb 06, 2025 9:11 am
OKRs must promise clear business value — otherwise, there’s no reason to spend resources on them. Low-value objectives LVOs are objectives that no one would notice or care about even if they were completed with a 1.0.
A classic and tempting example of LVO is: “Increase task CPU utilization by 3%.” This goal by itself doesn’t directly help users or Google. However, the possibly related goal of “Reduce the number of cores required to serve peak queries by 3% without changing qualitylatency . . . and return the resulting excess cores to the free pool” has clear economic value. It’s a higher goal.
Here’s a litmus test: Can the OKRs reasonably get to 1.0 without providing direct end-user or financial benefit? If so, then the OKRs need to be rewritten.”
OKRs are divided into a desired outcome Objective and the measurable france mobile database steps required to achieve that outcome Key Results. When writing KRs, it is critical that all Key Results score 1.0 and Objectives score 1.0.
A common mistake is to write Key Results that are necessary but not sufficient to accomplish the Objective. This mistake is tempting because it allows the team to avoid confronting the difficulties resourcespriorityrisk required by the “hard” Key Results.
This trap is particularly harmful because it delays the discovery of the resources needed to achieve the goal, resulting in the goal not being completed as planned.
Litmus test: Is it possible to score 1.0 on all Key Results and still not achieve the intent of the Objective? If so, add or rework Key Results until they are successfully completed to ensure the Objective is also successfully completed.
Read, interpret and execute OKRs
Commitment OKR
The team is expected to re-arrange their other priorities to ensure 1.0 is delivered on schedule.
A classic and tempting example of LVO is: “Increase task CPU utilization by 3%.” This goal by itself doesn’t directly help users or Google. However, the possibly related goal of “Reduce the number of cores required to serve peak queries by 3% without changing qualitylatency . . . and return the resulting excess cores to the free pool” has clear economic value. It’s a higher goal.
Here’s a litmus test: Can the OKRs reasonably get to 1.0 without providing direct end-user or financial benefit? If so, then the OKRs need to be rewritten.”
OKRs are divided into a desired outcome Objective and the measurable france mobile database steps required to achieve that outcome Key Results. When writing KRs, it is critical that all Key Results score 1.0 and Objectives score 1.0.
A common mistake is to write Key Results that are necessary but not sufficient to accomplish the Objective. This mistake is tempting because it allows the team to avoid confronting the difficulties resourcespriorityrisk required by the “hard” Key Results.
This trap is particularly harmful because it delays the discovery of the resources needed to achieve the goal, resulting in the goal not being completed as planned.
Litmus test: Is it possible to score 1.0 on all Key Results and still not achieve the intent of the Objective? If so, add or rework Key Results until they are successfully completed to ensure the Objective is also successfully completed.
Read, interpret and execute OKRs
Commitment OKR
The team is expected to re-arrange their other priorities to ensure 1.0 is delivered on schedule.