Process doc
Type
Process doc
Format
OKR worksheet + capacity model
From
Artist Program planning · 2024 cycle
01 · Context
This is the planning model my department ran on — recreated from the 2024 cycle, which closed at 109% attainment. Two design choices distinguish it from a standard OKR sheet. First, the investment budget was dynamic: tied to company revenue tiers, so hitting a revenue milestone mid-year expanded the program budget on a pre-agreed trigger instead of a new negotiation. Second, it carries an explicit capacity ledger — intake volume, review cycles, vendor schedules, team hours — that forces every commitment to reconcile against real throughput. Targets that ignore throughput are wishes.
02 · The artifact
Objective · 2024
Initiatives
Cohort-based onboarding
Regional recruitment
Vendor volume pricing
Grant distribution redesign
Capacity math
Intake ceiling: 10 pieces per contributor per quarter
Cutoff: submissions after the 15th roll to the next period
Dark months: Dec + Jan closed — planned, not discovered
Budget: $70K → $80K in Q3 on a pre-agreed revenue trigger
Rule: unplanned work reprioritizes existing KRs explicitly
Deferred items move to the next cycle in writing, never silently
↳ recreated from the 2024 cycle · clear the cells to reuse the scaffold
03 · Outcome
departmental OKR attainment, 2024
final program budget, expanded mid-year on a pre-agreed revenue trigger
KRs formally deferred to 2025 — in writing, with reasons
Two KRs from this cycle were formally deferred to the next year — and I’d point to those before the 109%. A planning model that can’t say “this moves to next cycle, here’s why” isn’t a plan, it’s a wish list. The dynamic budget trigger did the same job upward: growth was pre-negotiated, so success didn’t require a mid-year fight for resources.