OKRs are hard. A common error is to couple the O too tightly to the KR. Case in point: > Objective: Reduce body fat % Key result: Reduce body fat by 5% by the

OKRs are hard. A common error is to couple the O too tightly to the KR. Case in point: > Objective: Reduce body fat % Key result: Reduce body fat by 5% by the end of the year I really don’t like this form of OKR pair. The O is arbitrary here. Ideally leadership should convey the O, and the team can meaningfully exercise their experience to come up with KRs. In this case you are just specifying the KR. For example the O might really be “Get in shape for the calendar photo shoot”, and another meaningful KR would be to increase your lean body mass a bit. But not if you are training for an ultramarathon! Anyway, that’s perhaps a nit that is orthogonal to the point of the article. As to the article itself - I’m not sure I’m convinced by using both KPI and OKR. As I learned it, there is no reason not to set up KRs that are maintaining instead of improving; for example the SRE team might have the O: “keep the site up”, with one of many KRs: “99.99% API uptime”. I’m a fan of conceptual simplicity and I just don’t see a win for a third category above “plain metrics” that the team tracks and “KR” that the company tracks. The main strength I can see to the OKR&KPI approach is it lets you hide your KPIs in some contexts and really drill down on the few true KRs you have left. But whatever works for your team, go for it.