Good and sustainable OKR management means thinking backwards
OKR and classic project management differ fundamentally in their definition of objectives. While in OKR the planning of the approach is geared towards a short period of time and the effects on results are the top priority, in classic project management the focus is more on input and implementation in the long term.
OKR vs. project management: the core difference lies in the definition of objectives
In traditional projects, the definition of objectives is input-oriented, whereas in the OKR it is impact-oriented. In contrast to traditional project processes, the OKR approach is planned for a short period of time. With OKR, not all necessary tasks are identified, but rather a few key results. If necessary, it makes sense to define additional sub-key results with which progress can be generated over a period of several weeks.
A small number of individual activities are defined in a “mini sprint” in order to achieve real progress immediately. The definition of responsibilities for all activities is unnecessary with the OKR.
Sustainable OKR planning starts with the effects on earnings
In classic projects, you move forward mentally: from the analysis to the plan and implementation to the results.
With the OKR, you move backwards in your thinking: from the effects on results to implementation and the concept to the plan.
ProgressMaker® provides you with clear complexity and dependency management. This allows you to map dependencies between process variables simply and intuitively. Your teams will always know how the individual project steps are connected and what prioritization is required. This creates a unique implementation momentum.
Progress
