A Structured Approach To OKR Execution With Input Metrics
Pradeep Kanagaraj is Vice President of Operations at Mendel.
Objectives and key results (OKRs) have long been the gold standard for strategic planning in businesses worldwide. OKRs provide a structured way to set ambitious goals and measure progress, but while enthusiasm is high during the goal-setting phase, execution often falters. The reason? OKRs focus on the what but often neglect the how.
The Problem With Traditional OKRs
We’ve all experienced it before: It’s a new quarter, the executive team is ready to unleash the new company objectives, and everyone waits with bated breath to find out what the mission of the quarter will be. There’s applause, and the energy within the company is palpable. But after a few weeks pass, everyone returns to doing what they were doing before the new objectives were released.
Teams often lose momentum after the initial goal-setting phase because OKRs are aspirational but lack a structured execution plan. There’s a lot of fanfare in determining the next OKRs, but often weeks and months will go by while teams debate the best way to achieve the goal. The problem lies in ambiguity and a lack of alignment on the plan to achieve the goal, which precipitates accountability issues. There is usually a person assigned to champion each KR, but in reality, it’s never one person’s duty—achieving the objective requires cross-functional collaboration.
The Solution: Turn Your OKRs Into OKIRs By Defining Necessary Inputs
I’ve witnessed the ebb and flow of excitement and engagement surrounding OKRs throughout my career, and it continuously had me questioning how we could solve this. We work hard to establish these OKRs, but we don’t seem to be able to effectively track progress towards completion. The problem, I found, is that there is no clear execution plan when the process starts. So we introduced input key results (OKIRs) to break down execution into measurable steps.
For example, let’s say we want to achieve $10 million in ARR. How do we get there? We need to close 10 deals worth $1 million each. How do we get 10 deals? We need 50 late-stage opportunities. How do we get those? We need to contact 500 potential customers. Now, it’s broken down into clear, measurable input metrics and owned by the respective employee or department, thereby garnering clear accountability. We can measure progress towards these inputs at each stage of the sales funnel.
We implemented OKIRs, and the success rate of our KRs went up to over 70%. The structure creates buy-in, keeps enthusiasm high, and ensures execution doesn’t fizzle out after the goal-setting phase.
The process of building IRs into OKRs is straightforward:
1. Identify your objectives and key results.
2. Define clear input metrics.
3. Assign ownership and accountability.
4. Establish a structured execution plan.
5. Monitor progress through quantitative tracking.
Key Benefits Of OKIRs
• Clarity and alignment. OKIRs give teams a clear execution roadmap. Instead of setting a high-level target and hoping it works out, we define the exact steps needed to achieve it upfront.
• Accountability. Each IR has a clear owner, and the execution team is responsible for making it happen. This ensures that accountability is not vague or diluted across teams. If an OKR is not achieved, we know exactly who was responsible for which part of the process, and we can address those gaps.
• Data-driven execution. Typically, OKR progress is arbitrary. If it’s early in the quarter, teams say they’re 10% to 20% done. By the end, they say they’re 60% to 70% done. But it’s all made up. With OKIRs, progress is quantifiable: if we need 50 late-stage opportunities and we only have 25, we know we’re at 50%.
• Sustained engagement. One of the biggest reasons people lose interest in OKRs is because they don’t see a clear execution plan. With OKIRs, everything is defined upfront, so there’s no confusion or second-guessing halfway through. You’ve provided a structured forum for feedback and risk assessment before execution begins.
Challenges And Considerations
• Additional time investment. The primary downside is that OKIRs require more effort upfront. You’re investing more time defining input metrics and execution plans. But that investment pays off in sustained execution.
• Balancing execution and innovation. One argument against OKIRs is that OKRs were originally designed to be open-ended, allowing teams to explore different approaches. But in most companies today, execution is more critical than exploration. If you’re running a startup, you don’t have the luxury to try multiple paths—you need to invest resources in the one with the highest probability of success.
OKIRs enhance execution by bringing structure, accountability, and data-driven tracking to OKRs. If you want to optimize execution rather than just set goals, this is the way forward. It’s all about execution, metrics, excitement, and accountability. If we define the right steps upfront, success is no longer just an aspiration—it’s a structured path.
Forbes Technology Council is an invitation-only community for world-class CIOs, CTOs and technology executives. Do I qualify?