這是《為什麼谷歌說OKR不是績效管理》系列文章的延伸閱讀資料。歡迎關注本公眾號，閱讀更多關於谷歌OKR的文章。
英文版來源：https://www.whatmatters.com/resources/googles-okr-playbook
INTRODUCTION （介紹）
No one has more collective experience in implementing OKRs than Google.
實施OKRs，沒有誰比谷歌的經驗更豐富。
As the company has scaled (and scaled), it has periodically issued OKR guidelines and templates. The following excerpts are drawn mostly from internal sources and reprinted with Google’s permission. (Note: This is Google’s approach to OKRs. Your approach may—and should—differ.)
隨著公司擴張，谷歌定期發布OKRs指導方針和應用模板。以下摘錄主要為內部資料，轉載得到了谷歌公司的許可。（註：這是谷歌的OKRs實踐方法，你的方法可能——也應該——有所不同。）
正文——
At Google, we like to think big. We use a process called objectives and key results (OKRs) to help us communicate, measure, and achieve those lofty goals.
在谷歌，我們喜歡「往大處想」。「目標與關鍵成果」（OKRs）方法幫助我們溝通、量化、並實現那些宏大的目標。
Our actions determine Google’s future. As we』ve seen repeatedly—in Search, in Chrome, in Android—a team composed of a few percent of the company’s workforce, acting in concert toward an ambitious common goal, can change an entire mature industry in less than two years. Thus it is crucial that as Google employees and managers we make conscious, careful, and informed choices about how we allocate our time and energy—as individuals and as members of teams. OKRs are the manifestation of those careful choices, and the means by which we coordinate the actions of individuals to achieve great collective goals.
我們的行動決定谷歌的未來。就像我們反覆看到的——搜索、瀏覽器、安卓——一個很小的團隊，朝著一個有野心的大目標協同行動，在不到兩年的時間裡整體改變了一個成熟產業。關鍵在於，谷歌的員工和管理者，作為個人和團隊成員，在如何分配時間和精力方面，做出了深思熟慮的、謹慎的、基於博聞廣識的選擇。OKRs全面展現了這些謹慎的選擇，也是我們協同個人行動、實現宏大目標的方法。
We use OKRs to plan what people are going to produce, track their progress vs. plan, and coordinate priorities and milestones between people and teams. We also use OKRs to help people stay focused on the most important goals and help them avoid being distracted by urgent but less important goals.
我們使用OKRs制定計劃：我們要產出什麼、追蹤計劃進度、調整個人和團隊的優先事項和重要階段成果。OKRs幫助我們聚焦於最重要的目標，避免因緊急但次要的目標分心。
OKRs are big, not incremental—we don’t expect to hit all of them. (If we do, we’re not setting them aggressively enough.) We grade them with a color scale to measure how well we did:
OKRs是宏大的，不是漸進增長的——我們並不期待全部達成（如果全部達成，說明我們沒有設定足夠進取的OKRs）。
對OKRs達成情況的評價標準：
0.0–0.3 is red（0.0–0.3：紅色）
0.4–0.6 is yellow （0.4–0.6：黃色）
0.7–1.0 is green （0.7–1.0：綠色）
Writing Effective OKRs（制定有效的OKRs）
Poorly done/managed OKRs are a waste of time, an empty management gesture. Well done OKRs are a motivational management tool that helps make it clear to teams what’s important, what to optimize, and what tradeoffs to make during their day-to-day work.
Writing good OKRs isn’t easy, but it’s not impossible, either. Pay attention to the following simple rules:
草率的OKRs，只是空洞的管理姿態，浪費時間。完善的OKRs是激勵性的管理工具，讓團隊清楚知道：哪些是重要的、哪些需要優化、在日常工作中如何權衡取捨。
制定有效的OKRs並不容易，但並非不可能做到。注意以下簡單原則：
Objectives are the 「Whats.」 They:
· express goals and intents;
· are aggressive yet realistic;
· must be tangible, objective, and unambiguous; should be obvious to a rational observer whether an objective has been achieved.
· The successful achievement of an objective must provide clear value for Google.
Objectives是「做什麼」，應符合以下標準：
· 包含目標和目的（注釋：目的，即「為什麼設定這個目標」）
· 有野心的、進取的、同時是現實的
· 真實具體、客觀、沒有歧義；對於一個理性的觀察者，目標是否達成是顯而易見的。（注釋：對於目標是否達成，有明確、客觀的評價標準；根據標準，目標要麼達成、要麼沒有達成，不存在模糊的「中間地帶」）
· 目標的達成，必須對谷歌有清晰明確的價值
Key Results are the 「Hows.」 They:
· express measurable milestones which, if achieved, will advance objective(s) in a useful manner to their constituents;
· must describe outcomes, not activities. If your KRs include words like 「consult,」 「help,」 「analyze,」 or 「participate,」 they describe activities. Instead, describe the end-user impact of these activities: 「publish average and tail latency measurements from six Colossus cells by March 7,」 rather than 「assess Colossus latency」;
· must include evidence of completion. This evidence must be available, credible, and easily discoverable. Examples of evidence include change lists, links to docs, notes, and published metrics reports.
Key Results是「怎麼做」，應符合以下標準：
· 包含可衡量的裡程碑，裡程碑應有力推進目標的達成進程。
· 必須描述成果，而不是行為。不要使用「諮詢」、「協助」、「分析」、「參與」等描述行為的詞彙。明確描述這些行為對最終用戶的影響，如：「在3月7日之前發布分布式文件系統Colossus的6個存儲單元平均延遲和尾延遲測量值」而不是「評估Colossus系統的延遲情況」。
· 必須有完成標誌。完成標誌必須是容易獲取的（注釋：容易獲取的完成標誌，通常是工作中自動生成的文件或數據，不需要另外總結、統計）、可信的，如：變更清單、文檔連結、公告、正式發布的標準報告。
Cross-team OKRs （跨團隊OKRs）
Many important projects at Google require contribution from different groups. OKRs are ideally suited to commit to this coordination. Cross-team OKRs should include all the groups who must materially participate in the OKR, and OKRs committing to each group’s contribution should appear explicitly in each such group’s OKRs. For example, if Ads Development and Ads SRE and Network Deployment must deliver to support a new ads service, then all three teams should have OKRs describing their commitment to deliver their part of the project.
谷歌的很多重要項目需要不同團隊的貢獻，OKRs是理想的協同工具。跨團隊OKRs應該涵蓋所有需實質參與的團隊，跨團隊OKR中的承諾事項，應具體體現在每一個參與團隊的OKRs中。例如：如果廣告開發團隊、廣告運營維護團隊、網絡部署團隊都必須支持新的廣告服務項目，那麼這三個團隊都應有各自的OKRs來描述他們在該項目中所承擔的責任。
Committed vs. Aspirational OKRs
OKRs have two variants, and it is important to differentiate between them:
Commitments are OKRs that we agree will be achieved, and we will be willing to adjust schedules and resources to ensure that they are delivered.
— The expected score for a committed OKR is 1.0; a score of less than 1.0 requires explanation for the miss, as it shows errors in planning and/or execution.
By contrast, aspirational OKRs express how we』d like the world to look, even though we have no clear idea how to get there and/or the resources necessary to deliver the OKR.
— Aspirational OKRs have an expected average score of 0.7, with high variance.
承諾型OKRs vs. 願景型 OKRs
OKRs有兩種：承諾型與願景型；應區別認識、對待這兩種OKRs：
承諾型OKRs是我們一致認同必須達成的目標，為確保目標交付，我們甘願調整時間表和資源配置。
——承諾型OKRs的期望分值是1.0。實際得分低於1.0，說明在計劃或執行中存在失誤，必須做出解釋。
相反，願景型OKRs代表我們理想中的狀態，儘管我們可能還沒有明確的路徑或必要的資源去實現。
——願景型OKRs的平均期望分值是0.7，並且伴隨著高的標準偏差。（注釋：「標準偏差」是統計術語，「高標準偏差」意味著，統觀全部願景型OKRs，實際達成情況差異很大，不是「大多數願景型OKRs得分都在0.7上下」，而是「會有很多願景型OKRs遠遠高於0.7，也會有很多遠遠低於0.7」）
Classic OKR-Writing Mistakes and Traps （制定OKRs的常見錯誤與陷阱）
TRAP #1: Failing to differentiate between committed and aspirational OKRs.
— Marking a committed OKR as aspirational increases the chance of failure. Teams may not take it seriously and may not change their other priorities to focus on delivering the OKR.
— On the other hand, marking an aspirational OKR as committed creates defensiveness in teams who cannot find a way to deliver the OKR, and it invites priority inversion as committed OKRs are de-staffed to focus on the aspirational OKR.
陷阱1:不能正確區分承諾型與願景型OKRs
——將承諾型OKR設定為願景型，會增加失敗的風險。團隊可能不會重視它，也可能不會改變其它工作的優先順序去專注於該OKR的達成。
——另一方面，將願景型OKR設定為承諾型，對於無法找到實現路徑的團隊，會引發防禦心理；還會導致團隊OKR優先級的反轉：將本應致力於承諾型OKR的人力配置到願景型OKR。
（注釋：總體來說，承諾型OKRs的優先級高於願景型OKRs）
TRAP #2: Business-as-usual OKRs.
— OKRs are often written principally based on what the team believes it can achieve without changing anything they’re currently doing, as opposed to what the team or its customers really want.
陷阱2:一如既往型OKRs
——「在不改變任何現狀的情況下就能達成」的OKRs，不是團隊或客戶真正想要的結果。
TRAP #3: Timid aspirational OKRs.
—Aspirational OKRs very often start from the current state and effectively ask, 「What could we do if we had extra staff and got a bit lucky?」 An alternative and better approach is to start with, 「What could my [or my customers』] world look like in several years if we were freed from most constraints?」 By definition, you’re not going to know how to achieve this state when the OKR is first formulated—that is why it is an aspirational OKR. But without understanding and articulating the desired end state, you guarantee that you are not going to be able to achieve it.
—The litmus test: If you ask your customers what they really want, does your aspirational objective meet or exceed their request?
陷阱3：畏首畏尾的願景型OKRs
——從現狀出發，願景型OKRs應能有效回答： 「如果我們有更多的人力和一點點好運氣，我們能做到什麼？」或者另一個更好的問題：「如果能擺脫大多數限制條件，幾年以後，我們（或我們的客戶）的理想處境是什麼樣的？」在願景型OKRs設定之初，你並不知道如何達成——這也是為什麼稱其為「願景型」。但是，如果不能理解並清晰表達你所渴望的最終結果，你就註定無法實現它。
——試金石：什麼是你的客戶真正想要的？你的願景型OKRs能夠滿足或超越客戶的需求嗎？
TRAP #4: Sandbagging
— A team’s committed OKRs should credibly consume most but not all of their available resources. Their committed + aspirational OKRs should credibly consume somewhat more than their available resources. (Otherwise they’re effectively commits.)
— Teams who can meet all of their OKRs without needing all of their team’s headcount/capital . . . are assumed to either be hoarding resources or not pushing their teams, or both. This is a cue for senior management to reassign headcount and other resources to groups who will make more effective use of them.
陷阱4：負重前行
——承諾型OKRs應該消耗一個團隊的大部分、但不是全部資源。而一個團隊的承諾型+願景型OKRs的所需資源應超過團隊能夠獲得的資源（如果沒有超過，說明該團隊的願景型OKRs實際是承諾型）。
——如果一個團隊不需要利用全部成員/預算就能完成全部OKRs，說明他們要麼囤積了資源、要麼沒有設定挑戰的目標，或者二者兼有。這意味著高層管理者應將人員和資源分配至那些更能有效利用它們的團隊。
TRAP #5: Low Value Objectives (aka the 「Who cares?」 OKR).
—OKRs must promise clear business value—otherwise, there’s no reason to expend resources doing them. Low Value Objectives (LVOs) are those for which, even if the Objective is completed with a 1.0, no one will notice or care.
— A classic (and seductive) LVO example: 「Increase task CPU utilization by 3 percent.」 This objective by itself does not help users or Google directly. However, the (presumably related) goal, 「Decrease quantity of cores required to serve peak queries by 3 percent with no change to quality/latency/ . . . and return resulting excess cores to the free pool」 has clear economic value. That’s a superior objective.
— Here is a litmus test: Could the OKR get a 1.0 under reasonable circumstances without providing direct end- user or economic benefit? If so, then reword the OKR to focus on the tangible benefit. A classic example: 「Launch X,」 with no criteria for success. Better: 「Double fleet-wide Y by launching X to 90+ percent of borg cells.」
陷阱5：低價值目標（無人在意的OKRs）
——OKRs必須體現明確的商業價值，否則不應為之浪費資源。低價值目標即使完全實現，也沒人在意。
——典型的低價值目標：把CPU的利用率提高3%。這個目標並不能為用戶或谷歌帶來價值；然而與之相關的目標：「減少3%的峰值查詢所需內核數量，同時不改變質量/延遲時間，並能將多餘的內核資源返回自由池」，就有明確的商業價值，是一個很好的目標。
——試金石：在合理情況下，OKR是否會在沒有提供終端用戶價值或經濟價值的情況下達成1.0分？如果是，應聚焦具體可見的價值，重新定義OKR。如：「應用X技術」沒有明確的成功標準，更好的定義：「在大規模集群管理系統borg的90%以上的存儲單元應用X技術，從而實現雙倍的Y。」
TRAP #6: Insufficient KRs for committed Os.
— OKRs are divided into the desired outcome (the objective) and the measurable steps required to achieve that outcome (the key results). It is critical that KRs are written such that scoring 1.0 on all key results generates a 1.0 score for the objective.
— A common error is writing key results that are necessary but not sufficient to collectively complete the objective. The error is tempting because it allows a team to avoid the difficult (resource/priority/risk) commitments needed to deliver 「hard」 key results.
— This trap is particularly pernicious because it delays both the discovery of the resource requirements for the objective, and the discovery that the objective will not be completed on schedule.
— The litmus test: Is it reasonably possible to score 1.0 on all the key results but still not achieve the intent of the objective? If so, add or rework the key results until their successful completion guarantees that the objective is also successfully completed.
陷阱6：承諾型目標（O）的關鍵成果（KRs）不充分
——OKRs包括期望產出（目標/O）和獲得產出所需要的可衡量標誌（關鍵成果/KRs）。關鍵在於關鍵成果/KRs的設定：全部關鍵成果/KRs的得分為1.0，則目標/O的得分為1.0.
——常見錯誤：關鍵成果/KRs是目標/O的「必要但非充分」條件。這一錯誤很有「誘惑力」，因為可以逃避有難度的承諾型目標、逃避交付「硬核」關鍵成果。
——這一陷阱尤其有害，因為這會延誤發現問題、解決問題的時機，使人們無法及時發現完成目標所需的資源，無法及時發現目標不能按時完成。
——試金石：在所有關鍵成果都得分1.0的情況下，是否有可能仍無法實現目標？如果是，增加或重新設定關鍵成果，確保「達成全部關鍵成果」是「達成目標」的「必要且充分條件」。
Reading, Interpreting, and Acting on OKRs （解讀、執行OKRs）
For committed OKRs （承諾型OKRs）
— Teams are expected to rearrange their other priorities to ensure an on-schedule 1.0 delivery.
——承諾型OKRs的交付標準為1.0，團隊應將其設為最高優先級，按時交付。
— Teams who cannot credibly promise to deliver a 1.0 on a committed OKR must escalate promptly. This is a key point: Escalating in this (common) situation is not only OK, it is required. Whether the issue arose because of disagreement about the OKR, disagreement about its priority, or inability to allocate enough time/people/ resources, escalation is good. It allows the team’s management to develop options and resolve conflicts.
——不能按1.0標準及時交付承諾型OKRs的團隊，必須迅速將問題升級。（注釋：在谷歌語境中，「將問題升級」是指向更高的管理層反映問題、尋求裁定、進而達成共識。）這不僅是應該做的、更是必須做的。不管是由於對OKR設定或優先級存在分析分歧、還是時間/人力/資源不足，將問題升級都是好的選擇。這可以使團隊管理者開發更多的解決方案、化解衝突。
The corollary is that every new OKR is likely to involve some amount of escalation, since it requires a change to existing priorities and commitments. An OKR that requires no changes to any group’s activities is a business-as-usual OKR, and those are unlikely to be new—although they may not have previously been written down.
新的OKR必然會需要在某種程度上將問題升級，因為其改變了團隊職責和工作優先級。不需要團隊做出改變的OKR是「一如既往型OKR」，即使它以前沒有被明確記錄。（註：「一如既往型OKR」通常是一直在做、但沒有作為OKR的常規事務性工作。）
— A committed OKR that fails to achieve a 1.0 by its due date requires a postmortem. This is not intended to punish teams. It is intended to understand what occurred in the planning and/or execution of the OKR, so that teams may improve their ability to reliably hit 1.0 on committed OKRs.
——沒能按1.0標準及時交付的承諾型OKR，團隊需要做事後檢討/復盤。這不是為了懲罰團隊，而是為了讓團隊意識到在計劃和執行中的不足，進而提高能力、確保後續的圓滿交付。
— Examples of classes of committed OKRs are ensuring that a service meets its SLA (service level agreement) for the quarter; or delivering a defined feature or improvement to an infrastructure system by a set date; or manufacturing and delivering a quantity of servers at a cost point.
——承諾型OKR的幾種範例：某項服務達到服務水平協議；對某個基礎系統按時交付某項指定功能或改進；在成本範圍內建設並交付一定數量的伺服器。
Aspirational OKRs （願景型OKRs）
— The set of aspirational OKRs will by design exceed the team’s ability to execute in a given quarter. The OKRs』 priority should inform team members』 decisions on where to spend the remaining time they have after the group’s commitments are met. In general, higher priority OKRs should be completed before lower priority OKRs.
——願景型OKRs需要超出團隊當前的執行能力。團隊成員應了解OKRs的優先級：在達成承諾型OKRs之後，還應將剩餘時間用在什麼地方？總體而言，應該首先完成更高優先級的OKRs。
— Aspirational OKRs and their associated priorities should remain on a team’s OKR list until they are completed, carrying them forward from quarter to quarter as necessary. Dropping them from the OKR list because of lack of progress is a mistake, as it disguises persistent problems of prioritization, resource availability, or a lack of understanding of the problem/solution.
Corollary: It is good to move an aspirational OKR to a different team’s list if that team has both the expertise and bandwidth to accomplish the OKR more effectively than the current OKR owner.
——願景型OKRs及其相關優先事項應保留在團隊的優先列表中，直至完成；必要時，可以將它們從一個季度帶到下一個季度。因進展緩慢而放棄願景型OKRs是錯誤的，因為這會掩蓋一些固有問題，如：優先級的錯亂、願景型OKRs未能獲得資源、對問題/解決方案的理解不夠。
推論：如果一個團隊比另一個團隊更有能力和精力去達成一個願景型OKRs，那麼將該願景型OKRs轉移到前者是適宜的。
— Team managers are expected to assess the resources required to accomplish their aspirational OKRs and ask for them each quarter, fulfilling their duty to express known demand to the business. Managers should not expect to receive all the required resources, however, unless their aspirational OKRs are the highest priority goals in the company after the committed OKRs.
——團隊管理者應每季度評估願景型OKRs所需資源，並提出申請；讓決策者了解資源需求，是團隊管理者的職責。但這並不意味著團隊管理者應該獲得全部所需資源，除非其願景型OKRs享有在公司達成承諾型OKRs之後的最高優先級。
More Litmus Tests（更多的試金石）
Some simple tests to see if your OKRs are good: （一些簡單的OKRs質量測試）
· If you wrote them down in five minutes, they probably aren’t good. Think.
如果在五分鐘之內寫出全部OKRs，它們通常不夠好。再想想。
· If your objective doesn’t fit on one line, it probably isn’t crisp enough.
如果目標的描述超過一行，它可能不夠精煉。
· If your KRs are expressed in team-internal terms (「Launch Foo 4.1」), they probably aren’t good. What matters isn’t the launch, but its impact. Why is Foo 4.1 important? Better: 「Launch Foo 4.1 to improve sign-ups by 25 percent.」 Or simply: 「Improve sign- ups by 25 percent.」
如果你的KR是用團隊內部語言表述的（如：發布Foo 4.1），它們通常不夠好。重要的不是「發布」，而是其影響。為什麼Foo 4.1是重要的？更好的表述：「通過發布Foo 4.1，將登錄量提高25%」，或者簡單表述為：「將登錄量提高25%」。
· Use real dates. If every key result happens on the last day of the quarter, you likely don’t have a real plan.
使用真實的截止日期。如果每個KR的截止日期都是季度最後一天，你可能沒有真正做計劃。
· Make sure your key results are measurable: It must be possible to objectively assign a grade at the end of the quarter. 「Improve sign-ups」 isn’t a good key result. Better: 「Improve daily sign-ups by 25 percent by May 1.」
確保你的KR在每季度末都能以客觀的標準衡量。「提高登錄量」不是好的KR，更好的表述：「在5月1日前將日均登錄量提高25%」。
· Make sure the metrics are unambiguous. If you say 「1 million users,」 is that all-time users or seven-day actives?
確保衡量標準沒有歧義。如「1千萬用戶」是指「全部用戶」還是「周活躍用戶」？
· If there are important activities on your team (or a significant fraction of its effort) that aren’t covered by OKRs, add more.
如果團隊中有重要活動（或完成目標必不可少的一部分）沒有包含在OKRs中，請添加進去。
· For larger groups, make OKRs hierarchical—have high- level ones for the entire team, more detailed ones for subteams. Make sure that the 「horizontal」 OKRs (projects that need multiple teams to contribute) have supporting key results in each subteam.
對於較大的團隊，需要對OKRs逐層分解——整個團隊需制定高層級的OKRs，每個子團隊制定更詳細的OKRs。確保每個子團隊中都有能夠支撐「橫向」OKRs（需多個團隊做出貢獻的項目）的關鍵成果。
感謝您的耐心閱讀，請順手點個「在看」吧