Problem Statement
Facebook App Design needed a goal-setting methodology for its 400+ organization. FB App has 3 product design pillars (Studio*, Experiential Design and Platform).
My pillar, Studio (104 members), was the only pillar that utilized OKRs. The OKRs, however, were atypical in format and execution, which led to increased miscommunication between Studio pods, the XD and Platform pillars (which also covered the same product areas) and cross-functional partners, including Engineering and Product Management.
Because of unclear goal expectations, pods found out too late during Cycle 1* there was a duplication of work efforts.
*The Studio team is responsible for the FB App Design framework. Studio has 9 pods, each responsible for different product areas. The pods comprise a design manager, DPM, content designers, designers and UXR and operate on 8-week cycle increments.
The Studio OKR format:
- Pod designers wrote OKRs inconsistently in format
- 90% of the KRs written as tasks lists
- Only 1 Objective permitted per pod, which led to some KRs not aligning with the Objective
- Instead of 3-5 KRs, teams often had 10-15 per that 1 Objective
- Only the lead designer was credited with the OKR “completion” despite others working on it
- OKRs lacked no metrics or impact measurement
- OKRs not structured to measure progress
- KRs ended up detached from the Objective
Users
104 Product Design Leaders, Design Program Managers, UXR, Designers and Content Designers. Approximately 400 FB App Design members.
Role
Since there were reports of work duplication and miscommunication toward the end of Cycle 1*, I recognized the urgency for improvements before Cycle 2 commenced. I initiated an effort to uplevel and revise the Studio OKR structure, identifying the potential for efficiency gains.
Scope and constraints
The Studio OKR format was not an effective goal-setting methodology. The inconsistent structure did not correctly identify the Key Results to help achieve the Objective. Furthermore, the 1 Objective per pod format was not conducive to identifying work needed to accomplish organizational goals. As a result, duplication and interdependencies were identified too late, leading to inefficiency. Designers were also reluctant to deviate from the task list KR format because they viewed it as a way to measure performance.
Studio itself does not operate in a vacuum, so the OKRs had limited impact without other design pillars adopting the same methodology.
Process

I knew stronger, more traditional OKRs would reduce the potential for overlaps and enable us to spot collaboration opportunities earlier. I took the following steps to uplevel OKRs (using the Nielsen Norman Group Design Ops Landscape elements):
- Buy-in: I persuaded leadership to reevaluate how OKRs are structured, proposing Studio move closer to a more traditional OKR format (which I was familiar with since I worked at Google).
- Standardize: I authored the refreshed OKR guidance to promote alignment and promote the original intention of helping teams to collaborate, measure success and better represent respective outputs.
- Collaborate: Partnered with designers to run OKR writing sessions and gave examples of how to improve.
- Humanize: Educated designers that OKRs should not be viewed as checklists and are separate from individual performance (their managers reinforced this).
- Enable: Trained and gave feedback to other pods on how to structure OKRs to allow for impact measurement.
Outcomes and Lessons
I accelerated a unified, improved OKR writing structure for 104 people that informed a shift in Studio cadences with leaders to identify overlaps earlier in the 8-week cycle. By Cycle 2, the format was more consistent with spotting work interdependencies. By Cycle 3, I persuaded leadership to allow pods to have more than one Objective as needed since the rigidity of only one Objective was a disservice to the OKRs (since the KRs didn’t necessarily support the Objectives).
After launching the OKR upleveling initiative, I championed hiring an outside vendor to train the team on the OKR methodology. Furthermore, leadership conversations resulted in acknowledgment that for the OKRs to be truly effective, they needed to be adopted by all 3 pillars in a consistent format. I sourced the vendor, negotiated the rates, reviewed course materials, facilitated background interviews with FB App Design leaders and identified 45 key leaders to participate in the pilot OKR training.
I co-authored a survey to measure the group’s response to the training. Approximately 80% felt the training was informative and needed for the FB App design to adopt OKR successfully. Leadership plans to expand the training through coaches and additional training for the entire org and cross-functional partners.