PQP Strategy is a pragmatic way to use OKRs in organizations that are heavily driven by projects.

OKRs have become a widely known practice. Books, courses, and case studies are everywhere.

Still, when we move from theory to the day-to-day reality of large organizations, one question keeps coming up:

How do you use OKRs in an environment where everything already revolves around projects?

This article is not about replacing projects with OKRs, nor about introducing yet another framework.
It’s about dealing with reality as it is — and finding a more honest and effective way to connect strategy, execution, and teams in project-driven organizations.

Why I wrote this article

I wrote a book about OKRs, Team OKR in Action.
But this story started long before the book.

My first contact with OKRs was in 2008 at Google, when I was still living in Silicon Valley. Starting in 2013, I began using OKRs more frequently. By 2019, already living in Spain, I was facilitating strategic workshops with senior leadership, almost always using OKRs as a tool for strategic alignment — usually derived from the highest-level OKRs defined by the organization.

Up to that point, nothing too different from what many people have experienced.

The most significant shift happened in 2022.

That was when I decided to invest less energy in strategic OKRs and much more focus on tactical OKRs, especially those written and executed by teams.

What I started calling Team OKR.

In this approach, the protagonism is not in leadership defining everything, but in the team taking real responsibility for an objective and the outcomes that matter.

That shift eventually led me to write the book Team OKR, published in 2025.

But more important than the book itself was what I started noticing during that process. I worked with many different organizations — from different countries, industries, and sizes — and I began to see the same pattern repeating itself.

Large organizations. Structured. Well-intentioned.
Trying to implement OKRs “the right way.”

And at the same time, deeply project-driven.

Projects already approved.
Projects with defined budgets.
Projects with named sponsors.
Projects that span several quarters.

And then comes the attempt to fit OKRs into this environment.

That tension is exactly what motivated this article.

The real tension: OKRs in project-driven organizations

In theory, everything seems simple.

The company defines its strategy.
Then strategic OKRs are defined.
Then tactical OKRs are cascaded.
And finally, teams execute.

The problem is that, in practice, teams are not asked to execute objectives.

They are asked to execute projects.

And that’s where the collapse begins.

Executing a project is not the same thing as achieving an objective.

Projects speak the language of scope, deliverables, and planning.

Objectives speak the language of impact, learning, and outcomes.

In many organizations I work with, the dominant logic is not objective-driven.

It is clearly project-driven.

Planning happens through projects — sometimes called initiatives or programs, depending on the organization, but in this article I’ll use “projects,” since it’s the most common term.

Budget allocation happens through projects.
Governance happens through projects.
Committees approve projects.
Sponsors own projects.

By the time the year starts — or when strategic planning ends — the projects have already been decided.

That’s when tactical OKRs, usually at the team level, enter the conversation.

And often they enter in a slightly awkward way.

The project already exists, but someone asks:

“What is the OKR for this project?”

Or worse:

“How do we fit this project into the OKRs?”

From that moment, the classic symptoms begin to appear:

• Key Results become renamed milestones
• Objectives describe phases or deliverables instead of outcomes
• Teams “inherit” OKRs they didn’t write
• Autonomy becomes rhetoric instead of practice

And when you look closely, no one is really wrong.

The problem is not lack of willingness. Nor lack of knowledge.

It’s a collision between models.

OKRs come from a logic of focus, learning, and outcomes.

Projects come from a logic of scope, planning, and control.

When you try to hammer an OKR framework into an organization that is already fully structured around projects, friction is inevitable.

And that’s when those who believe in OKRs — myself included — end up thinking, even if they don’t say it out loud:

“Wait… how are we supposed to make this work here?”

In Brazilian Portuguese, there’s a very common expression people use in moments like that — when they are facing a frustrating situation and trying to figure out how something is supposed to work.

That expression is PQP.

It’s a bit like saying “WTF?” in English.

Now here’s the funny part.

The acronym PQP in this article actually stands for Project Quarter People.

But that coincidence wasn’t entirely accidental.

The idea first appeared during a piece of work I did with a global organization that had a strong presence in Brazil and teams spread across several countries. Because of that, everything needed to be written and structured in English, even though many of the conversations happened in Portuguese.

At the time, I started using the concept of Project Quarter to talk about focus and execution one quarter at a time. Naturally, that became PQ.

At some point, while emphasizing the importance of making it clear who was responsible for making that quarter happen, I added the final piece: People.

Project. Quarter. People.

PQP.

At first, I didn’t even notice.

Only later, when I started talking about this idea again in Portuguese, did the coincidence become obvious.

And suddenly the name made perfect sense.

Because PQP Strategy was born exactly from that moment when someone looks at a complex, project-driven organization and wonders:

“Wait… how is this supposed to work with OKRs?”

Not as a rejection of projects.

But as an honest attempt to deal with reality — without pretending projects don’t exist, without romanticizing autonomy, and without introducing yet another layer of process.

Accepting reality: projects exist (and that’s fine)

Before any attempt to improve alignment or execution, one thing needs to be said explicitly:

Projects exist.

And in large organizations, they don’t exist by accident.

Projects are how these organizations make investment decisions.

That’s how budgets are approved.
That’s how priorities are negotiated.
That’s how governance works.

Ignoring this reality is not agility.

It’s naïve.

In many contexts where I work, when the conversation about OKRs begins, the projects are already defined.

The macro scope has already been approved.
There is a named sponsor.
There is an expected duration — often spanning several quarters.

Trying to erase that or pretend it doesn’t exist usually creates more friction than value.

So the first decision of PQP Strategy is a decision of acceptance.

Accept that:

• projects will continue to exist
• projects may last more than one quarter
• projects have real constraints of budget, scope, and governance

The question is not whether projects should exist.

The question is how to deal with them better.

The real problem begins when a long project is treated as a single continuous block of execution, with no real pauses for focus, learning, or decision.

Everything becomes uninterrupted execution, quarter after quarter, until the project finally “ends.”

That’s where focus is lost, responsibility becomes diluted, and real outcomes are always postponed to the end.

Accepting the existence of projects does not mean accepting this model of continuous execution.

It means creating a smarter way to work within that reality.

That’s where the concept of Project Quarter enters the picture.

Project Quarter: the trick that changes the game

Once you accept that projects exist and will continue to exist, the question changes.

It stops being:

“How do I eliminate projects to implement OKRs?”

And becomes:

“How do I execute projects with more focus, learning, and better outcomes?”

The concept of Project Quarter comes directly from that shift in perspective.

The idea is simple.

Any project that lasts longer than one quarter should not be treated as a single continuous block of execution.

Instead, it should be treated as a sequence of quarters, each with a clear objective.

Project Quarter does not eliminate the project.

It breaks the project into time-based cycles.

The project still has:

• a sponsor
• a budget
• a macro scope
• an expected duration

What changes is the way execution is approached.

Instead of a detailed annual plan trying to predict everything, you work with explicit quarterly commitments — commitments focused on outcomes that make sense within that quarter and contribute to the larger project.

Each quarter becomes a clear unit of:

• focus
• learning
• decision

At the beginning of the quarter, it becomes explicit:

• which part of the project we will focus on now
• what outcome we expect to achieve
• who is responsible for making it happen

At the end of the quarter, it is also explicit:

• what results were achieved
• what we actually learned
• whether it makes sense to continue, adjust, or stop

Project Quarter creates short cycles inside long projects.

Not cycles created for bureaucracy — but cycles created for decision-making.

This simple shift solves several problems at once:

• it reduces the illusion of control created by annual plans
• it forces conversations about focus and priority
• it creates legitimate moments to review direction and partial results

Projects still exist.

But instead of continuous lines, they become a sequence of quarterly cycles.

Visually, the difference looks like this:

PQP Strategy with OKRs focused on a Project Quarter within an ongoing project

The image above shows an OKR focused on a Project Quarter, creating focus and clarity without breaking the continuity of the project. In contrast with:

An incorrect example of OKRs being used as project phases

The image shows OKRs used as phases of the project, turning into milestones and losing their focus on outcomes.

In the PQP Strategy: Team OKRs do not follow the entire project. They create focus within each quarter.

An example to make this more concrete

Let’s look at a simple example of how this works in practice.

Imagine a global organization, with operations across all continents and offices in more than thirty cities.

One of the strategic projects approved for the year is the migration of the internal collaboration tool — a large initiative with a defined budget, a named sponsor, and an impact on thousands of employees.

Beyond the technological simplification, there is also a clear strategic expectation of cost reduction associated with this project. In traditional project models, this kind of benefit usually appears only at the very end, after the final phase is completed.

In a more traditional project management approach, this initiative would likely be organized into phases:

• Phase 1: pilot in selected regions
• Phase 2: gradual expansion
• Phase 3: global rollout
• Phase 4: stabilization and optimization

There is nothing inherently wrong with this structure.

The change happens when the project stops being treated as a fixed sequence of phases and instead becomes structured as a sequence of Project Quarters, each with a clear objective — including business outcomes.

In this example, the first Project Quarter replaces what would traditionally be called Phase 1. The difference is that the quarter does not exist only to test the solution, but also to start capturing value from the beginning.

During this first quarter, the work takes place with teams in Brazil and Argentina. The goal is not to immediately shut down the previous collaboration tool, but to measurably reduce its dependency while the new solution is validated in daily work.

Once the quarter is defined, the project sponsor identifies the group of people responsible for making that cycle happen. Only then does that group take ownership of a Team OKR — not for the entire project, but specifically for that quarter.

Objective

Build confidence in the new collaboration tool in the daily work of teams in Brazil and Argentina, while generating learning, early signals of cost efficiency, and sufficient evidence to decide on the next steps of the collaboration tool migration in future quarters.

Key Results

– More than 60% of participating teams in Brazil and Argentina adopt the new tool as their primary collaboration platform and use it consistently throughout the quarter.

– User perception in those countries is on average equal to or better than the current tool, measured through comparative feedback surveys focused on meeting quality and ease of use.

– Usage of the previous tool by teams in Brazil and Argentina is reduced by at least 50%, creating real flexibility for reviewing licenses and costs in future quarters.

– Operations remain stable during the pilot, with no critical incidents that disrupt the daily work of the participating teams.

At the end of the quarter, the conversation is no longer:

“Did we complete Phase 1?” (output)

Instead, the question becomes:

• Do we have enough evidence?
• Have we already started capturing value?
• Do we have the information needed to decide the next quarter? (outcome)

The project still exists.
Governance still exists.

What changes is how the project is thought about and executed.

Instead of being a sequence of phases where benefits only appear at the end, it becomes a sequence of quarters with clear objectives, explicit responsibility, and value capture from the very first cycle.

People before the objective

When you start working with Project Quarters, the natural temptation is to jump directly to the wrong question:

“What is the objective of this quarter?”

I prefer to start somewhere else.

Before talking about the objective, I ask:

Who is the group of people responsible for making this quarter happen?

This is not a detail.

It is a change in logic.

In my book Team OKR, I define a team as a group of people with a common objective.

Notice the order.

First comes the group of people.
Then comes the commitment to the objective.

In project-driven organizations, the opposite often happens.

The project is defined first, and only afterward do people try to “allocate” teams, areas, or individuals to execute it.

When that happens, the focus naturally shifts to outputs — the deliverables of the project.

Instead of discussing what outcome needs to be achieved, the conversation quickly moves toward tasks and activities.

That’s why, in PQP Strategy, the final P — People — comes before defining the objective of the quarter.

For each Project Quarter, it becomes explicit:

• who the responsible group of people is
• who is actually part of that group
• who is not

This group may be an existing team.
It may be a temporary group.
It may include internal and external people.

The structure matters less than one thing: real responsibility for the outcome.

Only after this group (or better, this team) is clearly defined does it make sense to look at:

• the strategic OKRs defined by leadership
• the context of the approved project

And then answer the right question:

“What objective will we, as a real team, commit to for this quarter?”

That’s when the team writes its Team OKR.

Not a cascaded OKR.
Not an imposed OKR.

But an owned OKR.

And when that happens, something important changes.

The objective stops being “the project’s objective.” It becomes the team’s objective.

What changes in practice (and what doesn’t)

When I present PQP Strategy, one reaction is almost inevitable:

“Okay, I understand the logic… but does this change everything?”

The short answer is no.

The honest answer is that it changes what actually matters.

Let’s start with what doesn’t change.

Projects continue to exist.
They are still approved by committees.
They still have sponsors, budgets, and macro scopes.
Governance still works as before.

Strategy continues to be defined in longer cycles.
Strategic OKRs still exist.

None of this needs to be dismantled for PQP Strategy to work.

What changes is how execution happens within that context.

Instead of long projects running continuously and diffusely, you begin to have:

• explicit quarterly focus
• clear expectations of outcomes
• real decision moments

You work with groups of people who have clear responsibility and autonomy to decide how execution happens.

And OKRs stop being disguised task lists or milestones.

They return to the role they play best:

• creating focus
• guiding decisions
• making learning explicit
• and, as a consequence, delivering outcomes

PQP Strategy does not add a new process layer. It creates clarity.

Clarity about:

• what matters now
• who is responsible for it
• when and based on what decisions will be made

And that clarity makes a real difference where large organizations struggle the most: day-to-day execution.

Why PQP Strategy works

PQP Strategy works for a simple reason.

It does not try to fight the reality of large organizations.

It starts from the assumption that:

• projects already exist
• strategy has already been defined
• governance will not disappear (and it shouldn’t)

Instead of trying to replace all of that, PQP Strategy operates in the space where clarity is usually missing: between tactical direction and day-to-day execution.

By breaking projects into quarters, you create a healthier rhythm of focus, learning, and decision.

By making explicit who the responsible people are in each quarter, you prevent the natural dilution that happens in long projects.

And by using OKRs at the right level — the team level — you return the framework to the role it actually performs well.

None of this is revolutionary.

And perhaps that is exactly why it works.

PQP Strategy does not promise instant agility or unlimited autonomy.

It proposes something more pragmatic:

improving the quality of decisions quarter by quarter, within the constraints that already exist.

In large organizations, that is already a big step.

Projects still exist.
Strategy is still defined in longer horizons.

What changes is the way strategy and projects meet in everyday execution.

And when that meeting becomes clearer, less bureaucratic, and more outcome-oriented, execution improves.

Not because someone mandated it.

But because people finally understand:

• what matters now
• why it matters
• and who is responsible for making it happen.

That is the space where PQP Strategy starts making a difference.

——–

If you found this article useful and want to go deeper, there are a few natural paths to continue the journey.

• If you enjoy reading, the book Team OKR explores this topic in depth: how teams take ownership of objectives, make decisions, and execute OKRs in practice — even in complex, project-driven environments.
• If you want a simple and effective tool that helps teams truly focus on results and commitments, check out:
  www.teamokr.caroli.org
• And if you want to apply these ideas in your organization — PQP Strategy, Project Quarter, and Team OKR — explore the services we offer. Or even better, reach out to me on LinkedIn or through Caroli.org so we can schedule a conversation.