---
title: "Okr Design"
description: "OKR trees, KPI dashboards, North Star Metric, leading/lagging indicators, and experiment design. Use when setting team goals, defining success metrics, building measurement frameworks, or designing A/B experiment guardrails."
---

<span className="badge badge-gray">Reference</span> <span className="badge badge-yellow">medium</span>

> **Auto-activated** — this skill loads automatically when Claude detects matching context.

<ContextualSkillSidebar slug="okr-design" />


# OKR Design & Metrics Framework

Structure goals, decompose metrics into KPI trees, identify leading indicators, and design rigorous experiments.

## OKR Structure

Objectives are qualitative and inspiring. Key Results are quantitative and outcome-focused — never a list of outputs.

```
Objective: Qualitative, inspiring goal (70% achievable stretch)
+-- Key Result 1: [Verb] [metric] from [baseline] to [target]
+-- Key Result 2: [Verb] [metric] from [baseline] to [target]
+-- Key Result 3: [Verb] [metric] from [baseline] to [target]
```

```markdown
## Q1 OKRs

### Objective: Become the go-to platform for enterprise teams

Key Results:
- KR1: Increase enterprise NPS from 32 to 50
- KR2: Reduce time-to-value from 14 days to 3 days
- KR3: Achieve 95% feature adoption in first 30 days of onboarding
- KR4: Win 5 competitive displacements from [Competitor]
```

### OKR Quality Checks

| Check | Objective | Key Result |
|-------|-----------|------------|
| Has a number | NO | YES |
| Inspiring / energizing | YES | not required |
| Outcome-focused (not "ship X features") | YES | YES |
| 70% achievable (stretch, not sandbagged) | YES | YES |
| Aligned to higher-level goal | YES | YES |

See [references/okr-workshop-guide.md](references/okr-workshop-guide.md) for a full facilitation agenda (3-4 hours, dot voting, finalization template).
See [rules/metrics-okr.md](rules/metrics-okr.md) for pitfalls and alignment cascade patterns.

---

## KPI Tree & North Star

Decompose the top-level metric into components with clear cause-effect relationships.

```
Revenue (Lagging — root)
├── New Revenue = Leads × Conv Rate          (Leading)
├── Expansion   = Users × Upsell Rate        (Leading)
└── Retained    = Existing × (1 - Churn)     (Lagging)
```

### North Star + Input Metrics Template

```markdown
## Metrics Framework

North Star: [One metric that captures core value — e.g., Weekly Active Teams]

Input Metrics (leading, actionable by teams):
1. New signups — acquisition
2. Onboarding completion rate — activation
3. Features used per user/week — engagement
4. Invite rate — virality
5. Upgrade rate — monetization

Lagging Validation (confirm inputs translate to value):
- Revenue growth
- Net retention rate
- Customer lifetime value
```

### North Star Selection by Business Type

| Business | North Star Example | Why |
|----------|--------------------|-----|
| SaaS | Weekly Active Users | Indicates ongoing value delivery |
| Marketplace | Gross Merchandise Value | Captures both buyer and seller sides |
| Media | Time spent | Engagement signals content value |
| E-commerce | Purchase frequency | Repeat = satisfaction |

See [rules/metrics-kpi-trees.md](rules/metrics-kpi-trees.md) for the full revenue and product health KPI tree examples.

---

## Leading vs Lagging Indicators

Every lagging metric you want to improve needs 2-3 leading predictors.

```markdown
## Metric Pairs

Lagging: Customer Churn Rate
Leading:
  1. Product usage frequency (weekly)
  2. Support ticket severity (daily)
  3. NPS score trend (monthly)

Lagging: Revenue Growth
Leading:
  1. Pipeline value (weekly)
  2. Demo-to-trial conversion (weekly)
  3. Feature adoption rate (weekly)
```

| Indicator | Review Cadence | Action Timeline |
|-----------|----------------|-----------------|
| Leading | Daily / Weekly | Immediate course correction |
| Lagging | Monthly / Quarterly | Strategic adjustments |

See [rules/metrics-leading-lagging.md](rules/metrics-leading-lagging.md) for a balanced dashboard template.

---

## Metric Instrumentation

Every metric needs a formal definition before instrumentation.

```markdown
## Metric: Feature Adoption Rate

Definition: % of active users who used [feature] at least once in their first 30 days.
Formula: (Users who triggered feature_activated in first 30 days) / (Users who signed up)
Data Source: Analytics — feature_activated event
Segments: By plan tier, by signup cohort
Calculation: Daily
Review: Weekly

Events:
  user_signed_up  { user_id, plan_tier, signup_source }
  feature_activated { user_id, feature_name, activation_method }
```

Event naming: `object_action` in snake_case — `user_signed_up`, `feature_activated`, `subscription_upgraded`.

See [rules/metrics-instrumentation.md](rules/metrics-instrumentation.md) for the full metric definition template, alerting thresholds, and dashboard design principles.

---

## Experiment Design

Every experiment must define guardrail metrics before launch. Guardrails prevent shipping a "win" that causes hidden damage.

```markdown
## Experiment: [Name]

### Hypothesis
If we [change], then [primary metric] will [direction] by [amount]
because [reasoning based on evidence].

### Metrics
- Primary: [The metric you are trying to move]
- Secondary: [Supporting context metrics]
- Guardrails: [Metrics that MUST NOT degrade — define thresholds]

### Design
- Type: A/B test | multivariate | feature flag rollout
- Sample size: [N per variant — calculated for statistical power]
- Duration: [Minimum weeks to reach significance]

### Rollout Plan
1. 10% — 1 week canary, monitor guardrails daily
2. 50% — 2 weeks, confirm statistical significance
3. 100% — full rollout with continued monitoring

### Kill Criteria
Any guardrail degrades > [threshold]% relative to baseline.
```

### Pre-Launch Checklist

- [ ] Hypothesis documented with expected effect size
- [ ] Primary, secondary, and guardrail metrics defined
- [ ] Sample size calculated for minimum detectable effect
- [ ] Dashboard or alerts configured for guardrail metrics
- [ ] Staged rollout plan with kill criteria at each stage
- [ ] Rollback procedure documented

See [rules/metrics-experiment-design.md](rules/metrics-experiment-design.md) for guardrail thresholds, performance and business guardrail tables, and alert SLAs.

---

## Common Pitfalls

| Pitfall | Mitigation |
|---------|------------|
| KRs are outputs ("ship 5 features") | Rewrite as outcomes ("increase conversion by 20%") |
| Tracking only lagging indicators | Pair every lagging metric with 2-3 leading predictors |
| No baseline before setting targets | Instrument and measure for 2 weeks before setting OKRs |
| Launching experiments without guardrails | Define guardrails before any code is shipped |
| Too many OKRs (>5 per team) | Limit to 3-5 objectives, 3-5 KRs each |
| Metrics without owners | Every metric needs a team owner |

---

## Related Skills

- `prioritization` — RICE, WSJF, ICE, MoSCoW scoring; OKRs define which KPIs drive RICE impact
- `product-frameworks` — Full PM toolkit: value prop, competitive analysis, user research, business case
- `product-analytics` — Instrument and query the metrics defined in OKR trees
- `write-prd` — Embed success metrics and experiment hypotheses into product requirements
- `market-sizing` — TAM/SAM/SOM that anchors North Star Metric targets
- `competitive-analysis` — Competitor benchmarks that inform KR targets

---

**Version:** 1.0.0


---

## Rules (5)

### Design experiments with structured hypotheses, guardrail metrics, and staged rollout plans — HIGH


# Experiment Design & Guardrail Metrics

Structured experiment patterns extracted from metrics architecture practice. Complements the basic experiment template in `metrics-instrumentation` with deeper guardrail and rollout patterns.

## Experiment Design Template

```markdown
## Experiment: [Name]

### Hypothesis
If we [change], then [metric] will [direction] by [amount]
because [reasoning based on evidence].

### Metrics
- **Primary:** [The metric you are trying to move]
- **Secondary:** [Supporting metrics that add context]
- **Guardrails:** [Metrics that MUST NOT degrade -- see below]

### Design
- **Type:** A/B test | multivariate | feature flag rollout
- **Sample size:** [N per variant, calculated for statistical power]
- **Duration:** [Minimum weeks to reach significance]
- **Segments:** [User cohorts to analyze separately]

### Success Criteria
- Primary metric improves by >= [X]% with p < 0.05
- No guardrail metric degrades by > [threshold]
- Secondary metrics trend positive or neutral

### Rollout Plan
1. **10%** -- 1 week canary, monitor guardrails daily
2. **50%** -- 2 weeks, confirm statistical significance
3. **100%** -- full rollout with continued monitoring
```

## Guardrail Metrics Pattern

Guardrails prevent shipping a "win" that causes hidden damage. Every experiment must define guardrails before launch.

### Performance Guardrails

| Guardrail | Threshold | Alert Action |
|-----------|-----------|--------------|
| Page load time (p95) | Must not increase > 200ms | Auto-pause experiment |
| API error rate | Must stay &lt; 0.5% | Page on-call |
| Client crash rate | Must stay &lt; baseline + 0.1% | Kill switch |

### Business Guardrails

| Guardrail | Threshold | Alert Action |
|-----------|-----------|--------------|
| Conversion rate | Must not drop > 2% relative | Escalate to PM |
| Support ticket volume | Must not increase > 10% | Review UX |
| Revenue per user | Must not decrease | Escalate to leadership |

### Alert Threshold Template

```markdown
## Guardrail: [Metric Name]

- **Baseline:** [Current value over last 30 days]
- **Warning:** [X% degradation from baseline]
- **Critical:** [Y% degradation -- auto-pause experiment]
- **Owner:** [Team or person who responds]
- **Response SLA:** Warning = 24h, Critical = 1h
```

## North Star Metric Framework

Distinguish between input metrics (actionable, leading) and output metrics (outcome, lagging). Experiments should target input metrics while guarding output metrics.

```
Output (North Star): Weekly Active Teams
    |
    +-- Input: New team signups (acquisition)
    +-- Input: Teams completing onboarding (activation)
    +-- Input: Features used per team/week (engagement)
    +-- Input: Teams inviting members (virality)
    +-- Input: Teams upgrading to paid (monetization)
```

### Experiment Targeting

- **Target input metrics** -- they are directly actionable
- **Guard output metrics** -- they confirm the input metric change translates to real value
- **Monitor adjacent inputs** -- ensure one input improvement does not cannibalize another

## Pre-Launch Checklist

- [ ] Hypothesis documented with expected effect size
- [ ] Primary, secondary, and guardrail metrics defined
- [ ] Sample size calculated for minimum detectable effect
- [ ] Staged rollout plan with kill criteria at each stage
- [ ] Dashboard or alerts configured for guardrail metrics
- [ ] Rollback procedure documented

**Incorrect -- launching without guardrails:**
```markdown
Experiment: New checkout flow
Hypothesis: Will increase conversions
Plan: Ship to 100% of users on Monday
Success: Conversions go up
```

**Correct -- structured experiment with guardrails:**
```markdown
Experiment: New checkout flow
Hypothesis: Reducing steps from 4 to 2 will increase
  checkout completion by 15% because 60% of users
  drop off between steps 2 and 3.
Primary: Checkout completion rate
Guardrails: Revenue per transaction, refund rate, page load p95
Rollout: 10% for 1 week, 50% for 2 weeks, 100%
Kill criteria: Any guardrail degrades > 5% relative
```


### Instrument metrics with formal definitions, event naming conventions, and alerting thresholds — HIGH


# Metric Instrumentation & Definition

Formal patterns for defining, implementing, and monitoring KPIs.

## Metric Definition Template

```markdown
## Metric: [Name]

### Definition
[Precise definition of what this metric measures]

### Formula
```
Metric = Numerator / Denominator
```

### Data Source
- System: [Where data comes from]
- Table/Event: [Specific location]
- Owner: [Team responsible]

### Segments
- By customer tier (Free, Pro, Enterprise)
- By geography (NA, EMEA, APAC)
- By cohort (signup month)

### Frequency
- Calculation: Daily
- Review: Weekly

### Targets
| Period | Target | Stretch |
|--------|--------|---------|
| Q1 | 10,000 | 12,000 |
| Q2 | 15,000 | 18,000 |

### Related Metrics
- Leading: [Metric that predicts this]
- Lagging: [Metric this predicts]
```

## Event Naming Conventions

### Standard Format

```
[object]_[action]

Examples:
- user_signed_up
- feature_activated
- subscription_upgraded
- search_performed
- export_completed
```

### Required Properties

```json
{
  "event": "feature_activated",
  "timestamp": "2026-02-13T10:30:00Z",
  "user_id": "usr_123",
  "properties": {
    "feature_name": "advanced_search",
    "plan_tier": "pro",
    "activation_method": "onboarding_wizard"
  }
}
```

## Instrumentation Checklist

### Events
- [ ] Key events identified
- [ ] Event naming consistent (object_action)
- [ ] Required properties defined
- [ ] Optional properties listed
- [ ] Privacy considerations addressed

### Implementation
- [ ] Analytics tool selected
- [ ] Events documented
- [ ] Engineering ticket created
- [ ] QA plan for events

## Alerting Thresholds

```markdown
## Alert: [Metric Name]

| Threshold | Severity | Action |
|-----------|----------|--------|
| < Warning | Warning | Investigate within 24 hours |
| < Critical | Critical | Immediate escalation |
| > Spike | Info | Review for anomaly |

### Escalation Path
1. On-call engineer investigates
2. Team lead notified if not resolved in 2 hours
3. VP notified for P0 metrics breach
```

## Dashboard Design

### Principles

| Principle | Application |
|-----------|-------------|
| **Leading indicators prominent** | Top of dashboard, real-time |
| **Lagging indicators for context** | Below, trend-based |
| **Drill-down available** | Click to segment |
| **Historical comparison** | Week-over-week, month-over-month |
| **Anomaly highlighting** | Auto-flag deviations |

## Experiment Design

```markdown
## Experiment: [Name]

### Hypothesis
We believe [change] will cause [metric] to [improve by X%]

### Success Metric
- Primary: [Metric to move]
- Guardrail: [Metric that must not degrade]

### Sample Size
- Minimum: [N] per variant
- Duration: [X] weeks
- Confidence: 95%

### Rollout Plan
1. 5% canary for 1 week
2. 25% for 2 weeks
3. 50% for 1 week
4. 100% rollout
```

**Incorrect — Inconsistent event naming:**
```json
{
  "event": "UserSignup",
  "event": "feature-activated",
  "event": "Subscription_Upgraded"
}
```

**Correct — Consistent object_action naming:**
```json
{
  "event": "user_signed_up",
  "event": "feature_activated",
  "event": "subscription_upgraded"
}
```


### Metrics: KPI Trees & North Star — HIGH


# KPI Trees & North Star Metric

Hierarchical breakdown of metrics showing cause-effect relationships.

## Revenue KPI Tree

```
                         Revenue
                            |
          +-----------------+-----------------+
          |                 |                 |
     New Revenue      Expansion         Retained
          |            Revenue           Revenue
          |                |                 |
    +-----+-----+    +-----+-----+    +-----+-----+
    |           |    |           |    |           |
  Leads x    Conv  Users x   Upsell  Existing x (1-Churn)
  Rate       Rate   ARPU      Rate    Revenue     Rate
```

## Product Health KPI Tree

```
                    Product Health Score
                            |
         +------------------+------------------+
         |                  |                  |
    Engagement          Retention         Satisfaction
         |                  |                  |
    +----+----+       +----+----+       +----+----+
    |         |       |         |       |         |
   DAU/     Time    Day 1    Day 30    NPS    Support
   MAU      in App  Retention Retention       Tickets
```

## North Star Metric

One metric that captures core value delivery.

### Examples by Business Type

| Business Type | North Star Metric | Why |
|---------------|-------------------|-----|
| SaaS | Weekly Active Users | Indicates ongoing value |
| Marketplace | Gross Merchandise Value | Captures both sides |
| Media | Time spent reading | Engagement = value |
| E-commerce | Purchase frequency | Repeat = satisfied |
| Fintech | Assets under management | Trust + usage |

### North Star + Input Metrics

```markdown
## Our North Star Framework

**North Star:** Weekly Active Teams (WAT)

**Input Metrics:**
1. New team signups (acquisition)
2. Teams completing onboarding (activation)
3. Features used per team per week (engagement)
4. Teams inviting new members (virality)
5. Teams on paid plans (monetization)

**Lagging Validation:**
- Revenue growth
- Net retention rate
- Customer lifetime value
```

## Building a KPI Tree

### Step 1: Start with the Business Outcome
What is the top-level metric leadership cares about? (Revenue, Users, Engagement)

### Step 2: Decompose into Components
Break the metric into its mathematical components (multiplied or added).

### Step 3: Identify Input Metrics
For each component, identify what leading indicators predict it.

### Step 4: Assign Owners
Each metric should have a clear team owner.

### Step 5: Set Targets
Baseline + target for each metric in the tree.

## Best Practices

- **Keep trees 3 levels deep** -- deeper than that and it loses clarity
- **Every metric has an owner** -- no orphan metrics
- **Leading indicators at the leaves** -- actionable by teams
- **Lagging indicators at the root** -- confirms outcomes
- **Dashboard the tree** -- make it visible to the whole organization

**Incorrect — Flat metrics without hierarchy:**
```markdown
Q1 Goals:
- Increase revenue
- Improve engagement
- Reduce churn
```

**Correct — KPI tree with cause-effect relationships:**
```markdown
Revenue (Lagging)
├── New Revenue = Leads × Conv Rate (Leading)
├── Expansion = Users × Upsell Rate (Leading)
└── Retained = Existing × (1 - Churn Rate) (Lagging)
```


### Balance predictive leading indicators with outcome-based lagging indicators for product health — HIGH


# Leading & Lagging Indicators

Understanding the difference is crucial for effective measurement.

## Definitions

| Type | Definition | Characteristics |
|------|------------|-----------------|
| **Leading** | Predictive, can be directly influenced | Real-time feedback, actionable |
| **Lagging** | Results of past actions | Confirms outcomes, hard to change |

## Examples by Domain

```
Sales Pipeline:
  Leading: # of qualified meetings this week
  Lagging: Quarterly revenue

Customer Success:
  Leading: Product usage frequency
  Lagging: Customer churn rate

Engineering:
  Leading: Code review turnaround time
  Lagging: Production incidents

Marketing:
  Leading: Website traffic, MQLs
  Lagging: Customer acquisition cost (CAC)
```

## The Leading-Lagging Chain

```
Leading                                           Lagging
----------------------------------------------------------->

Blog posts    Website     MQLs      SQLs      Deals     Revenue
published  -> traffic  -> generated -> created -> closed -> booked
   |            |           |          |         |         |
   v            v           v          v         v         v
 Actionable  Actionable   Somewhat   Less      Hard      Result
             (SEO, ads)   (content)  control   control
```

## Balanced Metrics Dashboard

### Leading Indicators (Weekly Review)

| Metric | Current | Target | Status |
|--------|---------|--------|--------|
| Active users (DAU) | 12,500 | 15,000 | Yellow |
| Feature adoption rate | 68% | 75% | Yellow |
| Support ticket volume | 142 | &lt;100 | Red |
| NPS responses collected | 89 | 100 | Green |

### Lagging Indicators (Monthly Review)

| Metric | Current | Target | Status |
|--------|---------|--------|--------|
| Monthly revenue | $485K | $500K | Yellow |
| Customer churn | 5.2% | &lt;5% | Yellow |
| NPS score | 42 | 50 | Green |
| CAC payback months | 14 | 12 | Red |

## Using Both Effectively

### Pair Leading with Lagging

For every lagging indicator you care about, identify 2-3 leading indicators that predict it.

```markdown
## Metric Pairs

Lagging: Customer Churn Rate
Leading:
  1. Product usage frequency (weekly)
  2. Support ticket severity (daily)
  3. NPS score trend (monthly)

Lagging: Revenue Growth
Leading:
  1. Pipeline value (weekly)
  2. Demo-to-trial conversion (weekly)
  3. Feature adoption rate (weekly)
```

### Review Cadence

| Indicator Type | Review Frequency | Action Timeline |
|----------------|------------------|-----------------|
| Leading | Daily/Weekly | Immediate course correction |
| Lagging | Monthly/Quarterly | Strategic adjustments |

## Best Practices

- **Start with the lagging metric** you want to improve
- **Identify 2-3 leading indicators** that predict it
- **Set up automated dashboards** for leading indicators
- **Review leading indicators weekly** with the team
- **Use lagging indicators** to validate that leading indicators actually predict outcomes
- **Adjust leading indicators** when correlation breaks down

**Incorrect — Only tracking lagging indicators:**
```markdown
Monthly Review:
- Revenue: $485K (missed $500K target)
- Churn: 5.2% (above 5% target)

[Too late to fix - no early warning]
```

**Correct — Paired leading + lagging indicators:**
```markdown
Weekly (Leading):
- Active users: 12,500 → trend down, investigate
- Feature adoption: 68% → below 75%, action needed

Monthly (Lagging):
- Revenue: Validated prediction accuracy
- Churn: Confirms leading indicators correlation
```


### Structure OKRs with qualitative objectives and quantitative outcome-focused key results — HIGH


# OKR Framework

Objectives and Key Results align teams around ambitious goals with measurable outcomes.

## OKR Structure

```
Objective: Qualitative, inspiring goal
+-- Key Result 1: Quantitative measure of progress
+-- Key Result 2: Quantitative measure of progress
+-- Key Result 3: Quantitative measure of progress
```

## Writing Good Objectives

| Characteristic | Good | Bad |
|---------------|------|-----|
| Qualitative | "Delight enterprise customers" | "Increase NPS to 50" |
| Inspiring | "Become the go-to platform" | "Ship 10 features" |
| Time-bound | Implied quarterly | Vague timeline |
| Ambitious | Stretch goal (70% achievable) | Sandbagged (100% easy) |

## Writing Good Key Results

| Characteristic | Good | Bad |
|---------------|------|-----|
| Quantitative | "Reduce churn from 8% to 4%" | "Improve retention" |
| Measurable | "Ship to 10,000 beta users" | "Launch beta" |
| Outcome-focused | "Increase conversion by 20%" | "Add 5 features" |
| Leading indicators | "Weekly active users reach 50K" | "Revenue hits $1M" (lagging) |

## Key Result Formula

```
[Verb] [metric] from [baseline] to [target] by [deadline]

Examples:
- Increase NPS from 32 to 50
- Reduce time-to-value from 14 days to 3 days
- Achieve 95% feature adoption in first 30 days
```

## OKR Example

```markdown
## Q1 OKRs

### Objective 1: Become the #1 choice for enterprise teams

**Key Results:**
- KR1: Increase enterprise NPS from 32 to 50
- KR2: Reduce time-to-value from 14 days to 3 days
- KR3: Achieve 95% feature adoption in first 30 days
- KR4: Win 5 competitive displacements from [Competitor]

### Objective 2: Build a world-class engineering culture

**Key Results:**
- KR1: Reduce deploy-to-production time from 4 hours to 15 minutes
- KR2: Achieve 90% code coverage on critical paths
- KR3: Zero P0 incidents lasting longer than 30 minutes
- KR4: Engineering satisfaction score reaches 4.5/5
```

## Alignment Cascade

```
Company OKRs
    |
    v
Department OKRs (aligns to company)
    |
    v
Team OKRs (aligns to department)
    |
    v
Individual OKRs (optional, aligns to team)
```

## Best Practices

- **OKRs for goals, KPIs for health**: Use together, not interchangeably
- **Leading indicator focus**: Key Results should be leading indicators
- **Cascade with autonomy**: Align outcomes, let teams choose their path
- **Regular calibration**: Weekly check-ins on leading, monthly on lagging
- **3-5 objectives max** per team per quarter
- **3-5 KRs per objective**: Enough to measure, not too many to track

## Common Pitfalls

| Pitfall | Mitigation |
|---------|------------|
| Vanity metrics | Focus on metrics that drive decisions |
| Too many KPIs | Limit to 5-7 per team |
| Gaming metrics | Pair metrics that balance each other |
| Static goals | Review and adjust quarterly |
| No baselines | Establish current state before setting targets |

**Incorrect — Outputs instead of outcomes:**
```markdown
Objective: Build a great product

Key Results:
- Ship 10 features
- Write 50 unit tests
- Hold 20 customer interviews
```

**Correct — Outcome-focused key results:**
```markdown
Objective: Become the #1 choice for enterprise teams

Key Results:
- Increase enterprise NPS from 32 to 50
- Reduce time-to-value from 14 days to 3 days
- Achieve 95% feature adoption in first 30 days
```



---

## References (1)

### Okr Workshop Guide

# OKR Workshop Guide

Facilitation guide for setting effective OKRs.

## Workshop Structure

```
Total Time: 3-4 hours

1. OKR Foundations (20 min)
2. Review Company/Team Context (20 min)
3. Objective Brainstorming (45 min)
4. Key Result Definition (60 min)
5. Alignment Check (30 min)
6. Finalization (25 min)
```

## Pre-Workshop Preparation

### Materials Needed
- Company/team strategy docs
- Previous quarter OKR results
- Whiteboard or Miro
- Sticky notes (2 colors)
- Timer
- OKR template printouts

### Pre-Read for Participants
- Company OKRs (if cascade)
- Previous quarter results
- Strategic priorities for the period

## 1. OKR Foundations (20 min)

### Facilitator Script

```
"OKRs help us focus on what matters most and align our efforts.
Today we'll set [N] Objectives with [M] Key Results each.

Key principles:
- Objectives are QUALITATIVE and INSPIRATIONAL
- Key Results are QUANTITATIVE and MEASURABLE
- Aim for 70% achievement (stretch, not sandbagging)
- Focus on outcomes, not outputs"
```

### OKR Anatomy

```
OBJECTIVE: Qualitative, inspiring, time-bound
├── What do we want to achieve?
├── Why does it matter?
└── Is it ambitious but achievable?

KEY RESULT: Quantitative, measurable, has deadline
├── How will we know we succeeded?
├── Is it specific and unambiguous?
└── Can we track progress?
```

## 2. Review Context (20 min)

### Questions to Discuss

1. What are the company's top priorities this quarter?
2. What did we learn from last quarter?
3. What constraints do we have (resources, dependencies)?
4. What opportunities should we capture?

### Alignment Cascade

```
Company OKRs
    │
    ▼
Department OKRs (aligns to company)
    │
    ▼
Team OKRs (aligns to department)
    │
    ▼
Individual OKRs (optional, aligns to team)
```

## 3. Objective Brainstorming (45 min)

### Silent Brainstorm (15 min)
- Each participant writes 3-5 potential objectives
- One objective per sticky note
- Focus on outcomes, not activities

### Share & Cluster (15 min)
- Each person shares their objectives
- Group similar objectives together
- Identify themes

### Vote & Select (15 min)
- Dot voting (3 dots per person)
- Select top 3-5 objectives
- Discuss and refine wording

### Objective Quality Check

| Criterion | ✓ |
|-----------|---|
| Qualitative (no numbers) | |
| Inspirational (energizing) | |
| Time-bound (quarterly) | |
| Actionable (within our control) | |
| Aligned (to company/team strategy) | |

## 4. Key Result Definition (60 min)

### For Each Objective (15 min each)

1. **Brainstorm metrics** (5 min)
   - What would prove we achieved this?
   - What leading indicators matter?
   - What lagging indicators confirm success?

2. **Set targets** (5 min)
   - What's our current baseline?
   - What's a stretch target (70% achievable)?
   - What's the minimum acceptable?

3. **Refine wording** (5 min)
   - Is it specific and measurable?
   - Is the target ambitious but realistic?
   - Can we track this?

### Key Result Formula

```
[Verb] [metric] from [baseline] to [target] by [deadline]

Examples:
- Increase NPS from 32 to 50
- Reduce time-to-value from 14 days to 3 days
- Achieve 95% feature adoption in first 30 days
```

### KR Quality Check

| Criterion | ✓ |
|-----------|---|
| Quantitative (has number) | |
| Measurable (we can track it) | |
| Has baseline | |
| Has target | |
| Outcome-focused (not output) | |
| 70% achievable stretch | |

## 5. Alignment Check (30 min)

### Vertical Alignment
- Does this OKR support a higher-level objective?
- Is the connection clear?

### Horizontal Alignment
- Do any OKRs conflict with other teams?
- Are there dependencies we need to coordinate?

### Sanity Check Questions
- If we achieve all KRs, will we achieve the Objective?
- Can we actually measure each KR?
- Are we tracking too many things?

## 6. Finalization (25 min)

### Final OKR Template

```markdown
## Objective: [Inspiring statement]

**Key Results:**
1. [Verb] [metric] from [X] to [Y]
   - Baseline: X
   - Target: Y
   - Owner: @name

2. [Verb] [metric] from [X] to [Y]
   - Baseline: X
   - Target: Y
   - Owner: @name

3. [Verb] [metric] from [X] to [Y]
   - Baseline: X
   - Target: Y
   - Owner: @name
```

### Post-Workshop Actions
- [ ] Document final OKRs
- [ ] Set up tracking dashboard
- [ ] Schedule weekly check-ins
- [ ] Schedule mid-quarter review
- [ ] Share with stakeholders

