Practical Goal-Setting Methodology for Aligned, Audacious Success

Section One: Introduction

1.1 Research Background and Significance

Macro Societal and Organizational Context

Nearly every type of institution—from tech startups and Fortune 500 corporations to nonprofits, government agencies, and individual leaders—struggles with misaligned priorities, vague targets, and disconnected team workstreams. Traditional goal frameworks like annual performance KPIs and rigid top-down Management by Objectives (MBO) tie targets directly to pay, encouraging conservative, low-risk planning and hiding unmet priorities from leadership visibility. John Doerr’s April 2018 TED Talk responds to this widespread failure, arguing that institutional breakdown rarely stems from unethical leadership, but from poorly structured, misaligned goal systems. Drawing on decades of experience with Andy Grove at Intel and early-stage Google, Doerr formalizes Objectives and Key Results (OKRs) as a repeatable methodology built for fast, ambitious, transparent progress across every sectorHarvard Bu....

Practical Significance

For organizational leaders, people operations specialists, startup founders, nonprofit directors, and individual contributors, this article delivers a complete, actionable playbook for OKR rollout built directly from Doerr’s TED presentation and companion book Measure What Matters. Most existing OKR resources only share high-level definitions without standardized step-by-step implementation protocols, troubleshooting guides, or evaluation benchmarks. This method-focused analysis fills that gap by outlining a replicable workflow that scales from solo personal use to enterprise-wide company alignment, with real examples from Google, Intel, and Bono’s global anti-poverty advocacy work featured in the TED talk. Practitioners gain clear guardrails to avoid the most common OKR rollout mistakes that sink alignment efforts within one or two quarters.

Theoretical Significance

Prior management scholarship separates three siloed domains: MBO hierarchical goal theory, performance KPI monitoring, and agile short-cycle planning. Doerr’s OKR system merges these streams into a unified methodology with unique theoretical innovations: radical organizational transparency, strict separation of goal tracking from compensation, a two-part qualitative-quantitative goal structure, and balanced top-down plus bottom-up drafting cycles. This analysis supplements existing goal-setting theory by formalizing the four core OKR superpowers Doerr names—focus, alignment, tracking, and stretch ambition—and defines clear boundaries between OKRs and competing measurement tools like KPIs, resolving widespread theoretical confusion in organizational behavior research抖音百科.

1.2 Core Concept Definitions

1. OKRs (Objectives and Key Results): A cyclical quarterly goal methodology created by Andy Grove and popularized by John Doerr, pairing one to three inspirational qualitative Objectives (WHAT an organization aims to achieve) with two to five measurable, time-bound Key Results (HOW progress will be quantified) for every team and individualHarvard Bu....
2. Radical Transparency: A non-negotiable OKR rule requiring all team, department, and company OKRs to be visible to every employee, eliminating siloed private goal-setting and enabling cross-team alignment, highlighted repeatedly in Doerr’s TED speech.
3. Aspirational vs. Committed OKRs: Doerr’s dual classification: Committed OKRs are baseline targets expected to hit one hundred percent; Aspirational “moonshot” OKRs aim for seventy percent completion, designed to unlock bold innovation without punishing partial progress. 4 OKR Cascading: The structured process of rolling top-level company OKRs down through departments, teams, and individual contributors, balanced with bottom-up self-generated team OKRs to avoid rigid top-down command planning.
4. Separation of OKRs and Compensation: The foundational rule that OKR progress scores must never directly feed into bonuses, raises, or performance reviews, eliminating incentive to sandbag targets to guarantee full completion.

Clarification of Easily Confused Concepts

Three pervasive misinterpretations distort OKR implementation, explicitly addressed by Doerr in his TED talk. First, audiences conflate OKRs with KPIs: KPIs track steady operational health metrics, while OKRs drive intentional, time-limited change and ambitious transformation. Second, many managers treat OKRs as annual performance appraisal tools; Doerr stresses quarterly cycles and full pay separation to preserve stretch goal courage. Third, practitioners confuse MBO (Peter Drucker’s older top-down, pay-linked framework) with OKRs; Grove’s redesign strips annual cycles, pay ties, and opaque private goal-setting entirely to create faster, more transparent planning抖音百科.

Scope and Boundaries of Discussion

This article uses Module B (Method/Process structure) exclusively, drawing primary evidence from John Doerr’s 2018 TED2018 presentation, his book Measure What Matters, and peer-reviewed OKR implementation research. The analysis focuses on standardized organizational OKR methodology, covering small startup, mid-market corporate, and nonprofit adaptation while excluding hyper-specialized military goal variants unrelated to Doerr’s core framework. Personal individual OKR practice is included as a secondary use case, and comparative analysis against KPIs/MBO appears only to clarify proper OKR application boundaries.

1.3 Current Research Status, Domestic and International

Development History and Key Milestones

1954: Peter Drucker publishes MBO, the theoretical precursor to structured organizational goal-setting. 1970s: Andy Grove develops iMBOs (Intel Management by Objectives), the original OKR prototype, built for fast-moving semiconductor market competitionOKR Intern.... Late 1970s: John Doerr learns the iMBO system while working as an Intel engineer under Grove, documenting Grove’s slide deck framework for future evangelismHarvard Bu.... 1999: Doerr introduces OKRs to Larry Page and Sergey Brin at the forty-person early Google team, cementing the framework’s mainstream tech credibility through Chrome, Gmail, and Android product scaling. 2018: Doerr delivers the landmark TED2018 talk and releases Measure What Matters, formalizing standardized OKR implementation rules for global cross-industry adoption. 2018–2026: OKR training certification bodies, enterprise software tools, and nonprofit adaptation playbooks launch worldwide, with case studies spanning tech, manufacturing, education, and global advocacy (including Bono’s ONE campaign featured in the TED talk).

Mainstream Viewpoints and Competing Schools of Thought

Three dominant organizational goal frameworks compete in modern management practice:

1. Traditional KPI Performance Tracking: Operational, steady-state metrics tied directly to employee pay, focused on maintaining existing business output rather than transformative change.
2. Classic Annual MBO: Hierarchical top-down goal drafting, private department targets, annual review cycles, and full integration with compensation packages.
3. Doerr’s Transparent Quarterly OKRs: Balanced top/bottom drafting, radical cross-company visibility, strict pay separation, dual aspirational/committed target types, and short quarterly iteration cycles (the methodology analyzed here).

Shortcomings and Controversies in Existing Research and Practice

First, most published OKR guidance omits standardized step-by-step rollout workflows, forcing practitioners to piece together disjointed advice and leading to inconsistent partial implementation. Second, widespread corporate misalignment persists from ignoring the pay-separation rule, which turns stretch OKRs into safe, low-stakes targets that eliminate innovative risk-taking. Third, few resources provide clear troubleshooting for common rollout failures like overloaded OKR lists, siloed private goal drafting, and lack of cross-team cascading alignment. Fourth, limited comparative quantitative research tracks long-term productivity and alignment gains from properly executed OKR programs versus flawed partial implementations, a gap this structured method analysis addresses through standardized evaluation metrics from Doerr’s framework.

1.4 Framework and Core Objectives

Logical Structure Overview

This article strictly follows Module B (Methods / Processes / Operational Steps). Section One establishes the practical and theoretical gaps solved by Doerr’s OKR methodology, defines core terminology, and reviews OKR’s developmental history and competing goal frameworks. Section Two breaks down OKR’s non-negotiable core principles, full end-to-end quarterly implementation SOP, required facilitation tools, common rollout failures with targeted solutions, and standardized effectiveness evaluation metrics. Section Three outlines cross-industry OKR use cases, organization-size adaptation strategies, pervasive public misconceptions, and actionable practitioner guidance. Section Four summarizes core methodological takeaways and forecasts emerging OKR trends and research priorities. Section Five lists cited sources before mandatory metadata and learning encouragement.

Core Research Questions

1. What five non-negotiable foundational principles anchor John Doerr’s OKR methodology, and which organizational contexts make the framework most effective?
2. What complete six-step standard operating procedure guides full quarterly OKR drafting, cascading, tracking, and closing cycles for teams and entire companies?
3. What core facilitation and tracking tools are required for successful OKR rollout, and how do practitioners resolve the five most common implementation breakdowns?
4. How can leaders measure long-term OKR program effectiveness beyond simple key result completion percentages, and what continuous optimization steps improve alignment and stretch ambition over time?

Key Reader Takeaways

• OKRs succeed only when separated from employee compensation and fully visible company-wide; tying targets to pay destroys the system’s core stretch-goal purpose.
• A balanced mix of top-down strategic cascading and bottom-up team-generated OKRs eliminates rigid hierarchical planning and siloed workstreams.
• Quarterly short cycles enable rapid course correction, a critical advantage over outdated annual MBO and KPI review systems.
• Aspirational “moonshot” OKRs with seventy percent expected completion unlock transformative innovation, while committed baseline OKRs guarantee stable core business delivery.

Section Two: Main Body (Module B — Methods / Processes / Operational Steps)

2B.1 Core Principles and Applicable Scenarios

Five Non-Negotiable OKR Foundational Principles (From Doerr’s TED Talk)

1. Focus Through Constraint: Limit every individual/team to one to three Objectives per quarter, with two to five Key Results each; the discipline of cutting low-priority work delivers strategic clarity.
2. Radical Cross-Organizational Transparency: All OKRs, from C-suite down to entry-level contributors, are published in a shared accessible system with no private department goal silos.
3. Dual Target Classification (Committed / Aspirational): Separate baseline mandatory business targets from bold moonshot goals with adjusted success benchmarks (one hundred percent vs. seventy percent expected completion).
4. Strict Separation of OKRs and Compensation: OKR progress scores never feed bonuses, raises, or performance ratings to eliminate sandbagging and fear of missing stretch targets.
5. Balanced Top-Down + Bottom-Up Drafting: Company leadership sets high-level strategic OKRs, while teams generate roughly half their own aligned targets to retain local creative ownership.

Primary Applicable Scenarios

Fast-growth technology startups scaling cross-functional product workstreams; large corporations coordinating multi-department strategic transformations; global nonprofits running cross-border advocacy campaigns (Bono’s ONE campaign as Doerr’s featured TED example); municipal government agencies aligning community service priorities; venture capital portfolio company leadership alignment.

Secondary Applicable Scenarios

Small business quarterly growth planning; university department strategic cycles; individual personal career and learning goal-setting.

Scenarios Where OKRs Deliver Minimal Value

Static, fully stable operational teams with no planned transformation or innovation work; rigid regulated industries with zero room for stretch experimental targets; one-person microbusinesses with no cross-team alignment needs.

2B.2 Standard Operating Procedure (Full Quarterly OKR Cycle Step-by-Step)

Step One: Pre-Quarter Strategic Alignment Kickoff (One Week Before New Quarter)

Executive leadership drafts three maximum company-level OKRs tied to annual organizational vision, defining top strategic priorities for the coming quarter. Leadership hosts an all-company briefing to share these top OKRs and explain the “why” behind each strategic objective, per Doerr’s mandate to avoid top-down blind mandate rollouts.

Step Two: Department & Team OKR Drafting (Three-Day Collaborative Window)

Department heads cascade executive OKRs down to team leads, who draft aligned targets blending required top-down delivery and self-generated bottom-up aspirational goals. Every team writes one to three Objectives paired with two to five quantifiable Key Results, labeling each target either Committed or Aspirational. All draft OKRs are submitted to the shared transparent company system for cross-team visibility and alignment feedback.

Step Three: Cross-Team Alignment Review (Two-Day Peer Check-In)

Leaders review all published team OKRs to identify misalignment, duplicated work, or conflicting cross-department targets. Teams revise their drafts based on peer feedback to eliminate siloed planning and surface cross-functional dependencies before the quarter officially launches.

Step Four: Weekly Lightweight Progress Tracking Check-Ins

Every team holds fifteen-minute weekly OKR syncs to update Key Result completion percentages, flag blockers, and adjust action initiatives without rewriting core OKRs mid-quarter. Doerr emphasizes tracking progress metrics, not micromanaging daily task lists.

Step Five: Mid-Quarter OKR Adjustment Review (Six Weeks Into Quarter)

A formal cross-company midpoint checkpoint addresses major external market shifts or resource changes that render original Key Results unachievable. Minor initiative tweaks are permitted, but core Objectives remain fixed to preserve quarterly strategic focus.

Step Six: End-of-Quarter Closing, Scoring & Retrospective (Last Week of Quarter)

Teams score each Key Result (0–100 percent), separate committed versus aspirational outcome analysis, and hold a structured retrospective answering three core questions: What worked well in our OKR cycle? Where did alignment break down? What targets should we carry forward or retire next quarter? Retrospective insights feed directly into the next quarter’s Step One strategic planning phase.

2B.3 Key Tools and Resources for OKR Implementation

1. Centralized Transparent OKR Tracking Platform: Shared cloud software or internal wiki where every employee can view all company, department, and team OKRs at all times, fulfilling radical transparency requirements.
2. OKR Draft Template: Standardized worksheet separating Objective (qualitative inspirational statement), Key Results (quantifiable metrics), Committed/Aspirational labeling, and cross-team dependency fields.
3. Weekly Sync Agenda Template: Short fifteen-minute structure focused solely on KR progress, blockers, and resource requests to avoid unfocused long meetings.
4. Cross-Alignment Review Checklist: Evaluation rubric to flag misaligned, duplicate, or overly numerous OKRs during Step Three peer drafting feedback.
5. End-of-Quarter Retrospective Scorecard: Scoring matrix and reflection prompts to quantify program performance and generate actionable optimization changes for future cycles.

2B.4 Common Implementation Problems and Targeted Solutions

Problem One: Teams write eight-plus Objectives per quarter, diluting strategic focus

Root Cause: Leadership fails to enforce the one-to-three Objective constraint; teams treat every minor task as a formal OKR. Solution: Mandate hard limits during Step Two drafting; train managers to cut low-priority workstreams and move routine operational KPIs out of OKR cycles entirely.

Problem Two: OKR scores are tied to employee annual bonuses, creating sandbagged low targets

Root Cause: HR or leadership confuses OKR tracking with performance appraisal, violating Doerr’s core separation principle. Solution: Update all HR policy documentation to fully decouple OKR progress from compensation; deliver mandatory pre-rollout training on why pay integration destroys stretch ambition.

Problem Three: OKRs remain private to individual departments, breaking radical transparency

Root Cause: Managers fear cross-team criticism or expose unmet internal targets to peers. Solution: Enforce mandatory platform publishing of all draft and final OKRs; share Google’s internal full-transparency success case study from Doerr’s TED talk to shift cultural norms.

Problem Four: All targets are labeled Committed, eliminating aspirational moonshot innovation

Root Cause: Leaders penalize partial completion scores, discouraging bold experimental Key Results. Solution: Formalize the seventy percent success benchmark for Aspirational OKRs in all training materials; celebrate teams that hit partial stretch targets without full completion.

Problem Five: Quarterly tracking check-ins devolve into lengthy task micromanagement sessions

Root Cause: Facilitators lack standardized lightweight sync agendas, mixing daily task updates with strategic KR progress tracking. Solution: Adopt the fifteen-minute weekly OKR template that restricts discussion exclusively to measurable Key Result movement and blocking resource issues.

2B.5 Effectiveness Evaluation and Continuous Optimization

Four Standard OKR Program Evaluation Metrics (From Doerr’s Methodology)

1. Strategic Alignment Score: Percentage of team OKRs that directly tie back to top-level company quarterly Objectives (target benchmark: ninety percent alignment minimum).
2. Stretch Ambition Ratio: Split between Committed and Aspirational Key Results across all teams; healthy programs maintain a forty to sixty percent aspirational target mix.
3. Cross-Team Dependency Resolution Rate: Share of identified cross-department conflicts resolved during Step Three alignment reviews (target: one hundred percent pre-quarter conflict resolution).
4. Retrospective Action Item Follow-Through: Percentage of optimization changes from end-of-quarter retrospectives implemented in the subsequent planning cycle, measuring program learning agility.

Long-Term Continuous Optimization Strategies

1. Rotate quarterly OKR facilitators across departments to spread alignment facilitation skills evenly across leadership.
2. Run annual cross-industry OKR benchmark reviews using Google and Intel’s historic implementation data featured in Doerr’s TED presentation.
3. Create a centralized company library of high-quality Objective and Key Result examples to standardize clear, measurable writing across new teams.
4. Adjust cycle length for unique business contexts: shorten to monthly OKRs for early-stage startups, retain quarterly cycles for mid/large enterprises, adopt six-month annual vision OKRs layered over quarterly tactical targets.

Section Three: Application and Implications

3.1 Practical Application Scenarios

Technology Startups & Product Teams

Product and engineering groups use OKRs to align cross-functional design, development, and marketing around feature launch moonshots, separating stable platform uptime KPIs from transformative quarterly growth targets. Early-stage startups adopt monthly short OKR cycles to adapt to fast market pivots, as referenced in Doerr’s Google origin story.

Fortune 500 Corporate Strategic Transformation

Executive suites deploy company-wide quarterly OKRs to coordinate multi-year digital transformation, sustainability, or market expansion programs across siloed regional divisions, using radical transparency to eliminate hidden departmental conflicting priorities.

Global Nonprofit & Advocacy Organizations

Charities and advocacy groups (exemplified by Bono’s ONE campaign in the TED talk) set cross-border OKRs for policy lobbying, fundraising targets, and community outreach, balancing committed baseline program delivery with aspirational advocacy wins like national policy reform.

Education & Municipal Government Agencies

School districts and city governments align administrative, teaching, and public service teams around student success or community infrastructure Objectives, separating steady operational service KPIs from targeted quarterly improvement initiatives.

Adaptation for Different Organization Sizes

• Large enterprise (five hundred-plus employees): Full six-step quarterly cycle with dedicated OKR program managers, centralized tracking software, and formal cross-department alignment working groups.
• Mid-sized firms (fifty to five hundred staff): Condensed alignment review windows, shared spreadsheet tracking tools, and company-wide quarterly OKR kickoff town halls.
• Small teams / Startups (under fifty people): Simplified three-step drafting-tracking-retrospect cycle with lightweight shared docs, monthly short cycles for high-pivot industries.
• Individual Personal Use: Single Objective per quarter with two to three personal Key Results, no cascading required, used for career growth, learning, or wellness targets.

3.2 Common Misconceptions and How to Avoid Them

Misconception One: OKRs replace all business KPIs and daily performance tracking

Correction: Doerr explicitly distinguishes the two systems; KPIs monitor steady baseline operational health, while OKRs govern time-bound transformative change. Organizations run both systems in parallel, moving routine maintenance metrics out of OKR lists to preserve strategic focus.

Misconception Two: OKRs only work for fast-moving tech companies

Correction: The TED talk features Bono’s global anti-poverty nonprofit as a core non-tech case study, and Doerr documents successful rollouts in manufacturing, education, and local government. The methodology adapts to any organization pursuing intentional strategic change, regardless of industry speed.

Misconception Three: Leaders must write every team’s OKRs top-down with no bottom-up input

Correction: Balanced dual drafting is a core principle; fully top-down rigid OKRs kill team ownership and creative problem-solving, while unguided bottom-up targets create widespread strategic misalignment without executive guardrails.

3.3 Key Insights for Readers and Practitioners

Shifts in Core Organizational Thinking

Leaders must abandon the outdated annual top-down MBO mindset and embrace short-cycle transparent planning separated from compensation. Success is no longer measured solely by hitting one hundred percent of all targets; partial progress on bold aspirational OKRs counts as meaningful organizational win when core baseline committed targets are fully delivered.

Actionable Cross-Sector Recommendations

1. Organizational leaders: Complete a company-wide OKR training session before full rollout, emphasizing the pay-separation and radical transparency non-negotiable rules.
2. People operations teams: Rewrite performance review frameworks to fully isolate compensation evaluations from quarterly OKR progress tracking scores.
3. Team facilitators: Standardize lightweight weekly sync agendas to prevent OKR tracking from devolving into daily task micromanagement.
4. Nonprofit and advocacy directors: Split program OKRs into committed service delivery and aspirational policy advocacy targets to balance stability and transformative impact.

Long-Term Development Guidance

Sustained OKR success requires treating the methodology as an iterative learning system, not a static one-time implementation project. Every quarter’s retrospective insights must feed planning adjustments, and leadership must continuously reinforce the cultural norms of transparency and stretch ambition that make OKRs distinct from older goal-setting frameworks like MBO and tied KPIs.

Section Four: Summary and Outlook

4.1 Summary of Core Viewpoints

First, John Doerr’s 2018 TED Talk formalizes the OKR methodology originated by Andy Grove at Intel and scaled at early Google, a quarterly goal-setting system built to solve misalignment, vague targets, and risk-averse planning endemic to traditional MBO and pay-linked KPI frameworks. Second, five non-negotiable core principles define functional OKR programs: constrained focus, radical full organizational transparency, dual committed/aspirational target types, strict separation from employee compensation, and balanced top-down plus bottom-up collaborative drafting. Third, a standardized six-step quarterly SOP covers pre-quarter strategic kickoff, team drafting, cross-alignment review, weekly tracking, mid-quarter adjustment, and end-of-quarter scoring retrospectives, supported by a defined suite of tracking and facilitation tools with clear fixes for the five most prevalent rollout breakdowns. Fourth, four distinct quantitative evaluation metrics measure long-term OKR program health beyond simple completion percentages, paired with iterative optimization strategies to adapt cycles for startups, corporations, and nonprofits of all sizes. Fifth, OKRs operate in parallel with routine operational KPIs rather than replacing them, delivering unique value for transformative strategic change while leaving steady business-as-usual monitoring to separate performance indicator dashboards.

4.2 Future Development Trends and Outlook

Emerging OKR Methodology Directions

Cloud-native dedicated OKR software platforms will integrate real-time cross-team dependency mapping and automated alignment scoring to reduce manual facilitation labor. Hybrid remote/hybrid workplace OKR playbooks will standardize transparent asynchronous drafting workflows for distributed global teams. Public sector and nonprofit customized OKR frameworks will expand, adapting the stretch-goal model for mission-driven organizations without profit-focused growth incentives. Academic organizational behavior research will publish longitudinal quantitative studies measuring productivity and innovation gains from properly executed transparent OKR cycles versus flawed partial implementations.

New Persistent Implementation Challenges

Corporate HR teams will continue pushing to link OKR progress to bonus structures, creating recurring cultural friction that erodes stretch ambition without consistent executive guardrails. Large siloed legacy enterprises will face cultural resistance to radical cross-company OKR transparency from managers protective of private department performance data. Many small organizations will attempt rushed partial OKR rollouts skipping alignment reviews and retrospective cycles, resulting in underwhelming alignment outcomes that mislabel the methodology as ineffective.

High-Priority Further Research Avenues

Future scholarship should conduct comparative longitudinal analysis of company performance before and after full standardized OKR rollouts, isolating the impact of transparency and pay-separation rules on innovation output. Additional research should develop industry-specific OKR writing templates for education, manufacturing, and global nonprofit advocacy sectors. Researchers can also quantify the productivity gap between fully aligned cross-functional OKR teams and siloed planning groups using traditional annual MBO systems as a control benchmark.

Section Five: References

1. Doerr, J. (2018). Why the secret to success is setting the right goals. TED2018. https://www.ted.com/talks/john_doerr_why_the_secret_to_success_is_setting_the_right_goals
2. Doerr, J. (2018). Measure What Matters: How Google, Bono, and the Gates Foundation Rock the World with OKRs. Portfolio Penguin.
3. Harvard Business Review. (2018). How VC John Doerr Sets (and Achieves) Goals. https://hbr.org/2018/05/how-vc-john-doerr-sets-and-achieves-goals
4. OKR International. (2026). The Complete History of OKRs: Andy Grove to Google Global Adoption. https://okrinternational.com/what-are-okrs/
5. The OKR Institute. (2026). Core OKR Implementation Principles per John Doerr’s Framework. https://okrinstitute.org/fr/measure-what-matters/
6. Think Insights. (2026). OKR vs KPI vs MBO Full Comparative Analysis. https://thinkinsights.net/print/pdf/node/27402
7. Planwith.ai. (2025). Top Five OKR Rollout Failures and Remediation Playbook. https://planwith.ai/blog/complete-guide-okr-framework-explained
8. Flavio Silva. (2024). Radical Transparency and Cross-Team OKR Cascading Best Practices. https://flsilva.com/blog/beyond-goals-doerrs-okrs-for-high-performance-teams/
9. Keka Academy. (2026). Separating OKR Stretch Targets from Operational KPI Monitoring. https://academy.keka.com/blog/okr-vs-kpi/
10. SULTS Business Research. (2026). OKR Evolution Timeline: Drucker MBO to Intel iMBO to Google OKRs. https://www.sults.com/blog/okr/

Short Encouraging Learning Note

Running a one-month small-team OKR pilot will help you practice balanced aspirational target writing and cross-team alignment checks. Studying Google’s early OKR case studies from Doerr’s book builds deeper expertise for large enterprise organizational rollouts.