[quickthrower2]

OKRs can in theory make sense but they create a new kind of tension. Because they compete with the BAU work, the niggly things that come up mid quarter that you need to get done. Individuals need to resolve the dilemma, do what has to be done, or do what makes me look good.

I think a new thing is needed at least for smaller teams. Something like adaptive goals. Roadmap a year, vaguely and plan the next 6 weeks. Measure stuff where it makes sense but not everything needs a measure (or things that don’t might be 0 or 1). Plan based on velocity that takes into account that you wont have planned everything.

Measures are useful but also bullshit. There is no correlation between the measure and business success without intelligence. Even revenue is not a measure of success (I could sell half price bitcoins and have a lot of revenue!)

[robertlagrant]

The existence of bad measures doesn't preclude the possibility of good ones, even though they won't be perfect. BAU activities, e.g. devops, can be measured in useful ways[0] as well.

[0] https://dora.dev

[quickthrower2]

Oh yes. But intelligence needs to be applied. OKRs turn measures into something like a sport, like soccer where those measure become the goal (beat the KR and get a bonus, or even just pressure on the KR and nothing else).

[robertlagrant]

> But intelligence needs to be applied

I think this is an almost universal caveat.

> OKRs turn measures into something like a sport

No, I don't think that's true. People might do that, but they also do that to things that aren't OKRs. It's great to critique OKRs, but not by comparing them to a hypothetical perfect world.

[patrickmay]

BAU work should be covered in resource planning, not OKRs. The amount of time available to work on KRs should never be 100% -- it should be in the range of 60-70% to account for overhead, trainings, vacations, and unexpected issues that must be addressed.