Live data from Hacker News

Why OKRs might not work at your company

svpg.com

41–50 of 140 posts

Re: Why OKRs might not work at your company

#41
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> teaching all devs on how to do devops within 2 months Estimation based on initial guts should be quadrupled and rounded to the nearest quarter... so 9 months. This should provide a 90% percentile chance of success.

At my company, management has repeatedly said OKRs should target failure. So like if you think you can get a major feature set done in 15 weeks they want you to target 10. I’m not a fan of it myself. The idea feels like growth hacking, but over many quarters it doesn’t feel great to always be falling short of goals. I always assumed this is part of the OKR model, but maybe it’s just my company.

By the next stage, you'll have products being delivered made up of 50 JIRA tickets with 250 bug tickets being moved to whatever your long term Maintenance and Support team is... but someone will get to play with themselves over the thought that it was delivered on time.

Re: Why OKRs might not work at your company

#42
I really ought to read an OKR book, because the telephone-game version I hear about seems problematic.

For example, Austin's Measuring and Managing Performance in Organizations[0] gives a helpful 3-party model for understanding how simplistic measurement-by-numbers goes awry. He starts with a Principal-Agent and then adds a Customer as the 3rd party; the net effect is that as a Principal becomes more and more energetic in enforcing a numerical management scheme, the Customer is at first better served and then served much worse.

As a side effect he recreates or overlaps with the "Equal Compensation Principle" (described in Milgrom & Roberts' Economics, Organization and Management). Put briefly: give a rational agent more than one thing to do, and they will only do the most profitable thing for them to do. To avoid this problem you need perfectly equal compensation of their alternatives, but that's flawed too, because you rarely want an agent to divide their time exactly into equal shares.

Then there's the annoyance that most goals set are just made the hell up. Just yanked out from an unwilling fundament. Which means you're not planning, you're not objective, you're not creating comparative measurement. It's a lottery ticket with delusions of grandeur. In Wheeler & Chambers' Understanding Statistical Process Control, the authors emphasise that you cannot improve a process that you have not first measured and then stablised. If you don't have a baseline, you can't measure changes. If it's not a stable process, you can't tell if changes are meaningful or just noise. As they put it, more pithily:

> This is why it is futile to try and set a goal on an unstable process -- one cannot know what it can do. Likewise it is futile to set a goal for a stable process -- it is already doing all that it can do! The setting of goals by managers is usually a way of passing the buck when they don't know how to change things.

That last sentence summarises pretty much how I feel about my strawperson impressions of OKRs.

[0] https://www.amazon.com/Measuring-Managing-Performance-Organi...

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Economics-Organization-Management-Pau...

[2] https://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Statistical-Process-Con..., though I prefer Montgomery's Introduction to Statistical Quality Control as a much broader introduction with less of an old-man-yells-at-cloud vibe -- https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Statistical-Quality-Cont...

Re: Why OKRs might not work at your company

#43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google seems terribly run, frankly. I wouldn't use them as an example of good process, organization, or really anything other than that being early to advertising and being the internet's front page for ~20 years is a great way to make money

Why didn't the other companies that were those things succeed then? (Yahoo, Altavista, etc)?

I don't know. I don't feel that I have to know to make the statement I made.

Re: Why OKRs might not work at your company

#44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why didn't the other companies that were those things succeed then? (Yahoo, Altavista, etc)?

I don't know. I don't feel that I have to know to make the statement I made.

Curious to know from your point of view; which company is well organised and well-run?

Re: Why OKRs might not work at your company

#45
post #8

Biggest complain I have with Marty Cagan is he always describes the perfect product organization and says anything else is shit. Well you can't choose your execs, you can't choose your culture,.. so thank you for describing what is the ideal world, but almost no company will be able to apply your advice. Again in this article he doesn't explain how to replace OKR, but just says, if OKR doesn't work then your culture…

Well you can't choose your execs, you can't choose your culture

Can you choose where you work?

Re: Why OKRs might not work at your company

#47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google seems terribly run, frankly. I wouldn't use them as an example of good process, organization, or really anything other than that being early to advertising and being the internet's front page for ~20 years is a great way to make money

Why didn't the other companies that were those things succeed then? (Yahoo, Altavista, etc)?

I worked at Yahoo from 2004-2011. This is my opinion only. Yahoo was doing pretty well at times during that period. Certainly, Google had better revenue numbers and better margins, but Yahoo was still making tons of money, just not as much. Leadership had a tough time explaining what Yahoo did; although, they had a clear goal in 2004 era onboarding --- be in the top 3 of all internet verticals either through owned and operated properties or cobranding --- basically be the one place you could do everything you want to do on the internet (except porn). Yahoo search tested comparable to Google search in user research if shown with Google headers, but not with Yahoo headers, and it was expensive to run. Yahoo search marketing (yahoo's version of adwords) was not friendly to small businesses, way less realtime and as a result had lower CPCs than Adwords. The Microsoft purchase would have been a disaster (but maybe I'd have gotten a free Xbox?) because culture issues would have ruined the whole thing. The Microsoft search + ads deal was bad for a few reasons: Microsoft didn't make their revenue numbers and negotiated down from the contract about a year in; Yahoo kept a large amount of their search team and didn't get the cost savings they were planning; Microsoft's ad platform is/was worse than yahoo's.

I don't know too much about what happened after that, but I suspect not having control over the money making apparatus made it hard to control their destiny, and now we have Verizon owning them and finishing up the death spiral.

Re: Why OKRs might not work at your company

#48
post #21

The summary is "your company may not yet be worthy of OKRs". This kind of has the whiff of other religious movements in tech like REST and Agile: if it's not working for you, you just aren't doing it right. Try harder and hope to one day be worthy.

I'm trying to grasp what's wrong with that. That statement is true for every set of system/values. A set of systems won't work for 100% of the cases because that system was designed around a particular team. And there are times it won't work well. Whether the system is good/effective has nothing to do with "you aren't doing it right" part. The "you aren't doing it right" can be applied to literally everything.

The common thread is that they're frameworks which promise to be very general and be applicable everywhere, but which in practice "everyone does wrong".

If no one can actually successfully use your framework the right way, maybe the framework isn't as generally useful as it purports to be.

Re: Why OKRs might not work at your company

#49

One of our senior leadership people read the book, got in his mind that we need this at the company, got together the managers of all departments, they figured out some OKRs and now everyone’s off working on implementing them. Some of them are rather impossible, like teaching all devs on how to do devops within 2 months, so they can be self sufficient.

Similar story at my place. New executive hired who loves OKRs. Ends up not changing anything because the engineering OKR is “work on the product roadmap” aka what we’ve always been doing. Only lasting impact is there are a few more slides in the company wide meetings.

Engineering is clearly run by malicious compliance geniuses.

Re: Why OKRs might not work at your company

#50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. Google seems to not have anyone with a cohesive vision or even anyone that knows how to build a platform or maintain a product. I personally would like to know what's going on with the product owners at Google, because it really seems like none of them talk to each other. Google is a fantastic engineering company, but terrible at building products.

I don't know that they're a fantastic engineering company. I don't know what Google is great at - a few things, which feel like they're successful almost because they're treated as separate from the rest of the organization. OKRs are one of many parts of that, in my opinion.

Google engineering is fantastic and respectable. What gives the impression that it is anything else other than excellent?
Post reply on HN