OKRs — Objectives & Key Results
The goal-setting system that powers Google, Intel, Spotify, LinkedIn, and most high-performance tech companies. The operational translation of strategy into measurable quarterly commitments.
Origin
Peter Drucker (1954): Management by Objectives (MBO) — managers set goals, align with org goals, measure results. The ancestor of OKRs.
Andy Grove (Intel CEO, 1970s): Simplified MBO into two questions:
- Where do I want to go? → Objective
- How will I know I’m getting there? → Key Results
Grove called it “iMBOs” (Intel MBOs). Google’s John Doerr (VC at Kleiner Perkins) learned it from Grove and introduced it to Larry Page and Sergey Brin in 1999. Google has used OKRs every quarter since.
John Doerr’s book: Measure What Matters (2018) — highly recommended.
The Structure
OBJECTIVE
"What do I want to achieve?"
→ Qualitative, inspirational, clear, time-bound (usually 1 quarter)
→ Answers: WHY does this matter?
KEY RESULT 1
"How will I know I'm achieving it?"
→ Quantitative, specific, measurable, binary or scaled (0.0 → 1.0)
→ Answers: HOW do I measure progress?
KEY RESULT 2
→ Each Objective has 2–5 Key Results
KEY RESULT 3
INITIATIVE (optional)
"What will I do to achieve the KR?"
→ Projects, tasks, actions
→ Not part of OKR itself but tracks the *how*
What Makes a Good OKR
Good Objectives
- Inspirational and clear: not “improve performance” but “ship the product users love”
- Time-bound (this quarter)
- Qualitative (the Key Results add the numbers)
- Slightly uncomfortable (60–70% confidence of achieving)
- Connected to company/team mission
Good Key Results
- Measurable: has a clear number (not “improve,” but “increase from X to Y”)
- Outcomes, not outputs: “100 users onboarded” (outcome) not “launch feature” (output)
- Graded: should be gradable 0.0–1.0 at end of quarter
- Ambitious: 0.7 = success (hitting 1.0 means it was too easy)
- Not tasks: “Publish blog post” is an initiative, not a KR
The “Ladder Test”
If your KR doesn’t lead to the Objective being true, it fails the ladder test. KRs should be evidence that the Objective was achieved.
OKR Grading
At end of quarter: grade each Key Result 0.0 → 1.0.
- 0.7 = success (Google’s target average)
- 1.0 = great (but maybe the target was too low)
- 0.3–0.5 = learning (understand why, adjust)
- 0.0 = fail (and that’s OK if the bet was right)
“If you’re consistently scoring 1.0, your OKRs aren’t ambitious enough. If you’re consistently scoring 0.2, you need better estimation or execution.”
OKR Hierarchy (Company → Team → Individual)
COMPANY OKRs (annual + quarterly)
└── TEAM/PROJECT OKRs (quarterly, aligned to company OKRs)
└── INDIVIDUAL OKRs (optional, quarterly, aligned to team OKRs)
Alignment rules:
- Company OKRs cascade down (top-down)
- Teams also contribute OKRs bottom-up (what they know the business needs)
- 40–60% top-down, 40–60% bottom-up (not pure cascade)
- Cross-team OKRs for shared goals
CFRs — The Human Layer (Doerr’s addition)
OKRs measure what, CFRs build the culture of how:
- Conversations: manager ↔ employee, ongoing, not annual reviews
- Feedback: real-time, multidirectional (peer, upward, downward)
- Recognition: celebrate progress, not just outcomes
OKR Cadence
| Cadence | Purpose |
|---|---|
| Annual OKRs | Strategic bets, 3–5 top-level objectives |
| Quarterly OKRs | Execution layer, 3–5 objectives per team |
| Weekly check-in | Confidence score update (0–10), blockers, priorities |
| Mid-quarter review | Adjust or retire OKRs if context changes |
| End-quarter review | Grade + lessons learned + inputs for next quarter |
OKR vs KPI vs Task vs Goal
| Concept | What it is | Example |
|---|---|---|
| OKR | Ambitious quarterly commitment with measurable evidence | O: Validate product-market fit in pharma. KR: 10 pharmacies interviewed, 3 paying trials |
| KPI | Health metric, always tracked, not time-bound | Monthly Active Users, Churn Rate, MRR |
| Task | Specific action to execute | ”Send onboarding email sequence” |
| Goal | General intention | ”Grow the business” |
KPIs measure if the engine is running. OKRs measure if you’re driving somewhere new.
Common OKR Mistakes
| Mistake | Why it fails | Fix |
|---|---|---|
| Too many OKRs | Dilutes focus | Max 3–5 Objectives, 3–5 KRs each |
| Tasks as Key Results | ”Launch feature X” doesn’t measure value | Replace with outcome: “Feature X used by 50 users” |
| OKRs = job description | No stretch, no learning | Add 1–2 ambitious “moonshot” OKRs |
| Set and forget | No weekly check-ins | Schedule 30-min weekly review |
| Grading as performance review | Fear of honest grading | Separate OKR grades from performance compensation |
| 100% top-down | Kills team ownership | Allow teams to propose their own OKRs |
| Changing OKRs mid-quarter | Undermines commitment | Only change if context radically changes |
Sample OKRs for Your Projects
Q3 2026 — DigiTPME Diagnostic Platform
Objective 1: Validate product-market fit with Moroccan pharmacies
- KR1: Conduct 15 structured discovery interviews with pharmacy owners
- KR2: 3 pharmacies complete the pilot diagnostic and provide written feedback
- KR3: Identify 2 must-have features not in current spec
Objective 2: Establish thought leadership in Moroccan SME digitalization
- KR1: Publish 8 LinkedIn posts on digital maturity (≥50 engagements each)
- KR2: 200 new LinkedIn followers in target audience (SME owners, DG, DSI)
- KR3: 1 article published in a Moroccan business outlet (L’Economiste, TelQuel, etc.)
Q3 2026 — SijiLab
Objective 1: Ship SijiLab Wave 3 to a real beta lab
- KR1: Wave 3 modules (Billing, Invoice, Quality) pass DoD (deployed to staging, 80% test coverage)
- KR2: 1 Moroccan medical lab agrees to beta test SijiLab
- KR3: Beta lab processes ≥ 100 real lab requests through SijiLab
Q3 2026 — NOTQIN IEIA
Objective 1: Demonstrate ROI to a real industrial client
- KR1: IEIA deployed in 1 textile factory (even if free pilot)
- KR2: IEIA correctly identifies 3 real energy anomalies with >80% precision
- KR3: Client signs a letter of intent for a paid engagement
The Weekly OKR Check-in Format
OKR Check-in — Week of [date]
OBJECTIVE: [name]
KR1: [target]
→ Current value: [X] / [target]
→ Confidence this week: [1–10]
→ What happened: [1 sentence]
→ Blocker (if any): [1 sentence]
KR2: ...
Priority this week (1 thing that matters most): [initiative]
Overall status: 🟢 On track / 🟡 At risk / 🔴 Off track
OKR Tools
| Tool | Use Case |
|---|---|
| Notion | Popular for startups, flexible tables |
| Linear | Dev-focused, integrates with GitHub |
| Lattice | Performance + OKR for growing teams |
| Weekdone | OKR tracking + weekly reports |
| Google Sheets | Minimal, works for small teams |
| Obsidian | What you’re doing now — link OKRs to project notes |
For your current scale: a dedicated
04_Strategy/OKRs/Q3-2026-OKRs.mdnote per quarter is enough.
OKR vs Anthony’s Pyramid
| Anthony Level | OKR Equivalent |
|---|---|
| Stratégique (DG) | Annual Company OKRs |
| Tactique/Organisationnel | Quarterly Team OKRs |
| Opérationnel | Weekly check-in + Initiatives |
The Reporting mechanism in Anthony’s pyramid = OKR weekly check-ins + end-of-quarter grading. The Tableau de bord = the OKR dashboard (confidence scores, progress bars).
See Also
- Modern Management Overview
- Agile & Scrum
- Product Management Frameworks
- Master Strategy
- Q3-2026-strategy
- Coordinator OS/02 — Weekly Cadence