For humans · Act
Objectives that answer to the numbers.
Objectives and key results that live on your causal metric tree, not in a parallel spreadsheet. Outcome and execution are tracked apart, initiatives carry the budget and the owner, and the same pipeline that calculates your actuals decides whether the work moved the metric.
Strategy on the same model as everything else. Outcomes, work and proof in one place.
Objectives sit on the metric tree. Aligned to cause and effect
Each key result is a real metric with tested drivers beneath it, so the plan aligns to cause and effect you can check, not to a slogan repeated down the org.
Outcome and execution, tracked apart. Two lanes, not one bar
One lane reads whether the metric moved, the other whether the work got done. A shipped project on a flat number can no longer hide behind a single percentage.
Initiatives are the unit of investment. Budget, owners, milestones
The work behind each objective carries its budget, spend, owner and milestones, and the portfolio reads that spend against the movement of the metrics it was meant to move, so where the money is working is observed rather than argued.
The whole strategy on one canvas. The strategy map
Objectives cascade into key results and the initiatives that move them on a single live map, drawn in the same visual language as your metric trees. The dashed edge from work to number is the claim, on screen.
Targets verify themselves. No self-reported progress
A key result reads its own value from the pipeline behind every actual in KPI Tree. Nobody types a percentage into a status field on a Friday afternoon.
Plan around data you do not have. Planned metrics
An initiative can target a metric that does not exist yet, named and tracked as a planned metric, so closing a data gap is a funded piece of strategy rather than a footnote in a backlog.
The gap is not between strategy and execution. It is between strategy and understanding.
Every strategy tool aligns goals and tracks status. None of them tells you whether an objective is failing because the work slipped or because the work was the wrong lever. In KPI Tree, an objective links to the causal metric tree: each key result is a metric with a significance-tested driver beneath it, and each initiative is work aimed at a driver you can name. Alignment stops being a cascade of restated sentences from the company goal to the team goal, and becomes a chain of cause and effect you can follow from the board objective down to the number it moves.
One canvas for the whole strategy. Drawn like the rest of your business.
The strategy map lays the entire plan out as a live graph: objectives cascade from company to team, each key result hangs beneath the objective it proves, and every initiative connects to the key result it is meant to move with a dashed edge, so the bet is drawn rather than implied. The cards read like the metric cards on your trees, one number, one owner, one bar, because they are the same product speaking the same language. When a card turns amber the map shows you exactly which part of the org to talk to, and adding the next key result or initiative happens right there on the canvas.
Reduce labour cost percentage to below 28%
83%
outcome · Department objective · 1/3 tasks done
Labour cost percentage: below 28%
29.4
key result target ≤ 28
Rota optimisation rollout
40%
moves Labour cost % · £12k of £30k
The dashed edge is the claim: this work moves that number.
Outcome and execution are not the same number. Track them apart.
Most OKR tools collapse a goal into one progress bar, which is exactly how a team delivers every planned project and still misses the target. KPI Tree keeps two lanes on every objective. Outcome progress is whether the metric moved, read straight from the data. Execution progress is whether the initiatives and tasks got done. When the two diverge, the objective says so out loud and the review filters straight to it: a plan fully delivered against a metric that has not budged is the most useful thing a strategy meeting can surface, and here it is one click, not a quarter-end surprise.
Reduce labour cost to 26%
Off trackEvery project shipped. The metric has not moved.
Strategy at the top, tasks at the bottom, one model in between.
Objectives and key results are strategic. Tasks are tactical. Most companies keep them in different tools and lose the thread between them, which is how a quarter of work gets done without anyone being able to say which objective it served. Here tasks live inside the initiatives that deliver the strategy, every tier shows how much of the work beneath it is done, and capturing the next task is a single line typed where you already are. The board sees the plan; the team sees their list; both are looking at the same model. The strategic loop reviews the plan, the tactical loop delivers it, and the boundary between them runs through one model, not two tools.
Strategic · reviewed quarterly
The plan: an objective, the number that proves it, the bet that moves it
Reduce labour cost percentage to below 28%
83%
outcome · Department objective · 1/3 tasks done
Key result: below 28% by quarter end
29.4
reads itself from the pipeline · nobody types a status
Labour cost %, live
moved by
Rota optimisation rollout
40%
execution · £12k of £30k spent · 3 tasks
Tactical · runs daily
The loop: detect, route, act, verify
Detect
Up 4.2% this weekLabour cost %
Outlier-checked against seasonality, so it is signal, not noise.
Route
ASarah is told, with the driver attached
RACI from your directory decides who, the tree decides why.
Act
Task: pilot the new rota at Canary Wharf
Filed inside the rota rollout, so the work counts towards the bet.
Verify
Impact measured on the metric
What worked is remembered; next quarter plans against proof.
Canopy, the business context layer, holds both tiers
People and agents read the same model, over the app or MCP.
Initiatives are where the money goes. Manage them like a portfolio.
The work behind an objective is an investment, so it is modelled as one. Each initiative carries a budget, actual spend, an owner, milestones and the objectives and metrics it is meant to move, including the direction it should move them: up, down, or mitigate, holding a number steady as a guard-rail while you push elsewhere. A dedicated portfolio view then reads the evidence across all of them on one chart: how far each targeted metric has moved since the initiative started, signed by the direction it bet on, plotted against the share of spend behind it, so where the money is working is something you can see. Every initiative earns a verdict from the same rules, from double down through too early to judge, and because outcome and execution are tracked apart those verdicts can tell a funded initiative that is not working from one that has not really started, which is the difference between killing the wrong lever and killing the right one too early. Work that has not begun is not judged at all. Prioritisation stops being an argument about opinions and becomes a question you can answer from the model.
Where the money is working
Bubble area = budgetMetric movement since each initiative started, signed by the direction it bet on.
Share of portfolio spend
The data you do not capture yet belongs on the plan too.
Some of the most valuable initiatives in a data-led business exist to create data: the coverage you do not have, the field a supplier never passes through, the process nobody instruments. KPI Tree lets an initiative target a planned metric, a metric that does not exist in your warehouse yet, named now and wired in the moment it goes live. Data gaps stop being an aside in an engineering backlog and become funded, owned, reviewable strategy, and the moment the metric lands it starts verifying the work that created it.
Metric links
Not captured yet. The initiative exists to change that.
Every objective has a name on it. RACI, not a single owner field.
An objective without a named owner is a wish. KPI Tree applies the same RACI model it holds on every metric to objectives and their key results, kept current from your directory provider, so Responsible, Accountable, Consulted and Informed move with people as they change teams. When a key result drifts, the same push-and-escalate accountability that runs on every metric takes over, climbing the live org chart until someone acts, which is the difference between a status update and accountability.
Conversion rate
Marketing · daily
RA
CNobody marks their own homework. The metric is the referee.
A key result tied to a metric completes when the metric hits the target, read from the same pipeline that calculates your actuals; progress is observed, not reported. When an initiative is meant to move a metric, its impact is measured against that metric, not against what someone claimed at quarter-end. That verdict feeds the next quarter: work that proved out is recommended with its verified track record, and objectives are planned against levers that have actually moved before.
Fix checkout flow
Verified · +£32kLinked to Revenue · measured by the actuals pipeline
Pause underperforming ad sets
Measuring…Strategy that runs the loop. Not a document nobody reads.
An objective drifts off track. The named owner is notified with the driver behind it attached. An initiative is funded against the metric it targets, tracked, and its impact verified. Then the model learns and the next plan is sharper. It is the same loop the rest of the platform runs, applied to strategy, which is why objectives here do not sit in a silo away from the numbers, the ownership and the proof. They sit on top of them.