4 ms·
I think they are different. They’re simply targets for your business, the way it’s been done way before OKRs we’re a thing (e.g. target revenue for the year is
by hunvreus 3y ago
I think they are different. They’re simply targets for your business, the way it’s been done way before OKRs we’re a thing (e.g. target revenue for the year is $20M, churn should be brought to 5%). OKRs have a methodology and format attached to them and tend to trickle down multiple level in the organization.
- wioota 3y agoThere isn't really one way to do OKRs - you can read a dozen different descriptions and have a dozen variations. It's not a formal methodology but rather an approach that for a long time was passed around organically based on some key adjustments to MBO (Manage By Objectives) which came before it. E.g. How Measure What Matters and Radical Focus describe OKRs - two of the most popular books on the subject - differ quite a lot. I think finally there's some consensus that cascading OKRs is a bad practice but unfortunately people keep.doing it because that's how it was described in MWM. We tended to have goals / OKRs per team and longer term goals they could align to. Flatter the better when possible.
- kccqzy 3y agoI don't think OKRs necessarily need to trickle down. Nor do OKRs embody any methodology. To me, they merely restrict the format of writing out goals. Any high-level goal becomes an O. Then any measurements of that goal become separate KRs under that O. Simple as that. Formatting goals this way has its value. A vague goal that cannot be measured with have missing KRs; so this discourages writing vague goals.