Objectives and Key Results. The things you choose to optimize for during any given planning period.

Which is arguably stupid as it makes you focus on improving specific numbers instead of your product/service. Crude example:

OKR: Improve customer feedback ratings from 4.2 to 4.5+ stars

Result: Customer support personnel start handing out free upgrades/bonuses/merchandise to complaining customers, resulting in many 5 stars reviews and while not solving any problems customers are facing, still achieving the OKR.

Measuring performance by numbers instead of personal judgement (from managers/team leads) is problematic.

Edit: It certainly makes sense in some departments (like decreasing page load time from 2 seconds to 1[0] but forcing that across all verticals is retarded.

[0] then again you could achieve that for example by deleting all JS from the site

/rant

I hate, hate, hate, hate, this argument, it's correct but it distracts incredibly from the fact _numbers still do matter_. Software engineering, remarkably, is the only industry I know of that can wave away any metrics, at all, ever, being even mentioned, by pointing out it's possible to game a metric.

That isn't a criticism of OKRs. That is a criticism of literally any and all metrics.

There is nothing wrong with metrics, the issue is optimizing for them which is what OKRs are trying to do.

Yeah metrics are fine as long as they're not being manipulated. Then you can be aware of their inherent inaccuracy. Amazon reviews springs to mind. If the only inaccuracies is that people tend to be binary in their choices and either give 1 or 5 star reviews then you can for example adjust by giving more weight to the 4 star reviews. But with the current landscape of all of them being highly manipulated the numbers almost don't even matter anymore.

OKRs are the opposite.

In your example, the "O" would be something like "provide a good experience for app users" and a "KR" would be "improve star ratings from 4.2 to 4.5". The "O" helps keep you focused on what you actually care about, making the metric subservient to that goal.

Only in theory, in practice success is measured by the associated metric. And as constantly demonstrated, anytime you measure people’s performance by some metric that metric becomes gamed.

Relying on personal judgement of a small set of managers is the fastest way to kill any product. Plus, your example isn't really using the process correctly.

Improved feedback rating is a result, not an objective on its own. It could be filed under, say, "improve customer experience with the app". That objective would have many (3-5) results that you track, with improving feedback being just one of them. Others could be improving page load times (as you mentioned), adding critical missing functionality, or whatever else. These results can also be based on subjective opinions, but need to be somewhat measurable (otherwise how do you know whether you made things better?) Ultimately if you made good enough progress in each of these KRs, you can consider the objective achieved.

What I guess I'm saying is that it's insanely difficult to come up with good OKR's and so many good things aren't measurable, while the fans of OKR's don't seem to want to take this into account.

Whatever alternative methods (judgement of managers) is up for debate though, I didn't say I had a good one. Just that OKR's in my mind are a waste of time for the most part, especially when you make the whole organization do them.

And look at products like Facebook, they seem to be built solely on OKR's.