Aligning direction with the GPS Framework

From vision to today's task. Same structure, different time scales.

GPS asks three questions at three time scales: Infinite → Cycle → Immediate
Goal describes the desired future: Where are we going?
Positioning measures the observable gap between here and there: Are we there yet?
Strategy resolves trade-offs when multiple routes exist: What are our route preferences?
Time Scale
How much time do we invest?		 Goal
Where are we going?		 Positioning
Are we there yet?		 Strategy
What are our route preferences?
Infinite GPS near-permanent
Play to keep playing. Long-term direction. Persists across cycles.
How you imagine the future. Currently out of reach but not unimaginable. Never "completed." (Think: Vision statement.)
format: plain text
"Running any process between people is effortless. The process just works and the history is always there."
The single number that tells you if you're succeeding at your goal. Must be independently observable, not self-reported. (Think: One Metric That Matters from Lean Startup.)
format: single metric
Total sessions completed. A session = a process that actually happened between real people.
The reinforcing loop that compounds your progress over time. (Think: Flywheel from Jim Collins' Good to Great.)
format: visual loop
Easy process creation → More sessions → Richer data → Smarter automation → Less admin burden → More processes worth running → …
Cycle GPS 1 week – 1 year
Play to win this round. Proposed based on expected return, not assigned top-down. Higher uncertainty → shorter cycle.
What you're achieving this cycle. Concrete end state. Derived from the current bottleneck in your Infinite Strategy. (Think: an OKR objective.)
format: plain text
"Ship public beta with business licensing by end of cycle."
Current and target values on metrics that show the gap. (Think: OKR key results.)
format: metrics from → to
Live processes: 6 → 18. Organizations: 2 → 5. Billing MVP: no → yes.
What to prioritize when you hit a fork. Not a to-do list. (Think: strategic bets.)
format: visual map
Map axes: customer segment (small teams → mid-size → enterprise) × adoption depth (exploring → committed → dependent). Focus on the bottom-left: small teams still exploring. Move them upward to committed. Don't move right into enterprise until billing is proven.
Immediate GPS hours – days
Execute with autonomy. Written by the person accountable. Writing it is the first step of execution.
What outcome this task produces and why it matters. Links to the cycle strategy it executes. (Think: a user story.)
format: plain text
"Marketing site explains what we do to a first-time visitor. Unblocks sales conversations that currently require a live demo."
Current state: what concretely exists right now. Done state: what's verifiably different when complete. (Think: acceptance criteria.)
format: current → done
Current: No public site. Sales require live demo. Done: Site live. Visitor understands what we do and requests access without talking to anyone.
Guardrails, constraints, and reference points that tell the executor what to prioritize, what to avoid, and where to look. Not steps. (Think: an approach brief.)
format: guardrails + constraints + references
Use strategy docs as content source. Follow brand direction. Lead with "process between people" framing, not technical features. Don't over-promise unshipped capabilities.
When progress stalls, adapt in this order:
1
Change the strategy
Try a different route. Cheapest to change.
2
Adjust the positioning
Reduce ambition based on what you learned.
3
Rethink the goal
Only if the learnings justify it. Most expensive.
Each step is more expensive than the last, so exhaust the cheaper options first. The team that owns the GPS triggers these changes, not someone above them.
How GPS scales
Scope scales with company size
1–15 people
team = company
15–50 people
teams + company
50+ people
teams + units + company
Infinite
Cycle
Immediate
Company
✓
✓
○
Unit
✓
✓
○
Team
○
✓
✓
✓ = typical. ○ = possible. Every scope can have each, but this shows where they naturally concentrate.
Cycle length scales with maturity
Ideate
1 week
Validate
1 month
Scale
1 quarter
Mature
1 year
Principles
01
Each time scale nests into the one above. An immediate GPS serves a cycle strategy. A cycle GPS addresses a bottleneck in the infinite strategy. Alignment flows across time scales. Autonomy lives inside them.
02
Each GPS is owned by the scope that holds it. Ownership means you write it, adapt it, and are accountable for its outcomes.
03
GPS is an alignment tool, not a compliance tool. The executor writes their own GPS to think clearly before acting. The system makes it visible. Alignment emerges as a side effect, not from reporting upward.
04
Rigidity should match maturity. Match the stability of your infinite GPS to the stability of your business model. Early on, the vision is a hypothesis. Once you've found what works, the infinite GPS hardens and cycles lengthen.

Running the GPS Framework

The operational guide. How to plan, check in, review, and adapt using GPS.

This guide covers the cycle level, where most of the operational work happens.

The goal cycle

Every cycle follows the same rhythm:

Start of cycle
Strategize
During cycle
Check-in
During cycle
Check-in
End of cycle
Review
↩ Review informs next cycle's strategizing session

How often you check in depends on cycle length. A rule of thumb: quarterly cycles use bi-weekly check-ins, yearly cycles use monthly check-ins, and weekly cycles use daily stand-ups.

Strategizing

At the start of each cycle, re-iterate the GPS from the scope above, then build this cycle's GPS in five steps. The order matters: you start from where you are, not from where you want to be.

1
P Positioning (Current)
"What tells us that we need to leave here and go someplace else?"
Identify the metrics that describe where you are right now. This gives you your starting location and tells you what to track.
2
G Goal
"What is the value in going there?"
Describe the desired destination in plain language. Derived from the current bottleneck in your infinite strategy.
3
P Positioning (Target)
"What will tell us that we have arrived or at least made progress?"
Set target values for the metrics from step 1. Using the same metrics for start and target ties the journey together. It gives you a story to tell.
4
S Strategy
"What is our approach?"
Decision guidelines for when you hit a fork in the road. Not a step-by-step plan. Describe visually on a map that shows your market position, intended movement, and boundaries.
5
P Positioning (Guardrails)
"How might blindly following this strategy get us into trouble?"
Add metrics that prevent gaming. Any single metric incentivizes optimizing that metric at the expense of everything else. Multiple metrics create balance.
The emotional test. Before finalizing your GPS, ask: would you be genuinely upset if you don't achieve this? Not disappointed. Upset. If the answer is no, you've written a bureaucratic exercise, not a goal. Use emotional language. Say "I want to make this fly" instead of "Prove feasibility." You'll have to repeat yourself many times. Use phrases that come naturally.
Why start with positioning, not the goal? Because you can't set a meaningful destination without knowing where you are. The current location surfaces the metrics that matter. The goal becomes a response to what those metrics tell you, not a wish disconnected from reality.

Check-in

The purpose of check-ins isn't tracking. It's creating repeated opportunities for the people accountable at each scope to demonstrate that these goals matter. When someone reports being behind, the reaction from the scope above (curious and problem-solving, not punitive but clearly invested) signals whether the GPS is real or paperwork.

A check-in follows four steps. The order matches the adaptation rule: cheapest change first.

1
P Positioning (Current)
How much progress have we made? How does the progress relate to the time and effort invested so far?
2
S Strategy
Considering how far we got and what we learned: is this still the best strategy? Can we adjust to make faster progress?
3
P Positioning (Target)
Based on what we learned: do our target values still make sense? Do we need to adjust what "arrived" looks like?
4
G Goal
Based on progress, route changes, and updated targets: is the destination still viable? Do we still want to go there?

Check-ins serve two purposes: internal course correction and external accountability. You use them to adjust strategy. The scope above uses them to assess whether the investment is on track. If you are significantly off-course, the investment board may offer support, adjust expectations, or reduce scope. Transparency about setbacks builds trust. Hiding problems until the review breaks it.

Review

What marks the end of a journey?

Four things can end a goal cycle. Only the first one is intuitive. The other three prevent death marches.

1
You reached the goal
The obvious ending. Target metrics hit. Celebrate and move on.
2
The battery is drained
The cycle ended. Think of cycle length as the charge allocated for this journey. If reaching the destination requires more charge than the value justifies, move on. You get this automatically by defining consistent goal cycles.
3
You learned you can't reach it
Something you discovered during the journey makes the goal unreachable. Continuing is waste. Abort and redirect.
4
You found something more valuable
A discovery during the journey uncovered a goal that matters more. Pivot deliberately, not by drift.

Using only #1 is the hallmark of a death march: everyone can see it's pointless, but reconsidering the goal isn't part of the process. Adding #2 through #4 is the hallmark of agility. You get #2 from consistent goal cycles. You get #3 and #4 from questioning your goals during check-ins. At the end of a cycle, you may decide to continue with a goal, but that's a deliberate investment decision, not inertia.

How to review

Once you know which ending you hit, assess what happened and extract learnings for the next round. Same four steps as the check-in, different questions:

1
P Positioning
How much progress did we make? Did we reach the target values we set during strategizing?
2
S Strategy
Was this the best strategy to reach the goal? What did we learn that will help us decide on our next strategy?
3
P Positioning (Target)
Were our targets realistic? What would we set differently knowing what we know now?
4
G Goal
Based on what we achieved and learned: did we reach the goal? What will help us decide on our next goal?
Celebrate. Progress on metrics is harder to feel than reaching a tangible milestone. Make both visible. The resulting energy sustains the next cycle better than a sense of "not enough" ever could.

Review informs the next investment

The review sets the stage for the next cycle's pitch. Those who delivered on their promise earn credibility for bolder asks. Those who missed with good reasons and documented learnings may continue at similar investment levels. A pattern of misses without learning needs a structural conversation, not another pitch.

Cycle goals as investment pitches

Goal alignment is bidirectional. The GPS from the scope above cascades down as a frame: here's where we're going, here's where we are, here's our approach. Cycle goals then bubble up as investment pitches: here's what we propose to deliver within that frame, and here's what we need to do it.

A pitch is a cycle GPS plus an investment ask:
Goal, Positioning, Strategy: the cycle GPS, prepared using the five strategizing steps.
Investment ask: What resources do we need to deliver this?
1. Context
The scope above shares its GPS.
2. Pitch
You prepare your cycle GPS and investment ask as a proposal.
3. Align
You align your pitch with lateral scopes and the scope above using group consent (no one has a reasoned objection).
4. Promise
An aligned pitch becomes a promise. You own the goal and are accountable for delivering it throughout the cycle.
Why this works: The frame comes from above. The conviction comes from within. You can't blame the scope above for unrealistic goals because you proposed them yourself. The scope above can't micromanage execution because they approved the GPS in the pitch, not a detailed plan. The promise enables accountability: the scope above holds the promiser to what they committed to, not to something that was imposed on them.

The pitch hierarchy

Pitches flow upward through the organizational structure. Team leads pitch to unit leads. Unit leads pitch to company leads. Each scope acts as investment board for the scope below. The frame cascades down. Proposals flow up.

Dependencies across scopes

Pitches don't happen in a vacuum. A cycle GPS must fit the GPS of the scope above (the super-GPS). Every pitch depends on all three parts of the super-GPS: the goal (pitches must contribute to it), the positioning (pitches must move the metrics), and the strategy (pitches must be coherent with the approach, or explicitly challenge it).

Scope above
Sets the frame
↓ GPS cascades as context
↑ Pitches rise as proposals
Scope below
Fills the frame

When a pitch doesn't fit, two possibilities: the pitching scope misunderstood the context (clarify and re-pitch), or the pitch reveals a flaw in the super-GPS (surface it and decide whether to adjust). Good pitches don't just fit. They stress-test.

The dependency also flows upward. When the scope above looks at all pitches together, it must ask: "If all these succeed, will we achieve our super-GPS?" If the answer is no:

1
Stronger pitches
Ask scopes below to propose more ambitious goals with corresponding investment asks.
2
More capacity
Fund additional capacity to fill the gap between pitches and super-GPS.
3
Revise the super-GPS
Acknowledge the goal isn't feasible given current capabilities and adjust it honestly.

The pitch model makes gaps visible and negotiable, instead of the scope above dictating sub-goals that "must" add up and being disappointed when reality intervenes.

Keeping GPS alive

The minimum. If you don't look at and talk about your GPS at least every two weeks, you won't reach your goals. This is the single most common failure mode: goals are formulated with effort, forgotten in a tracking system, and "rediscovered" at the end of the cycle with disappointment.
Connect to now
standups · reviews · demos
When you review completed work (sprint review, demo), connect it to your GPS: how much did this bring us closer? When you coordinate daily work (standup, sync): how much will today's work move the needle?
Connect forward
infinite GPS
Link your cycle GPS to the infinite GPSs at your scope and above. Talk about both whenever you come together across scopes: all-hands, town halls. People need to see the thread from their daily work to the vision.
Consult the map frequently
dashboards · shared tools
Make checking the dashboard a frequent habit, not a monthly chore. Track goals with the same tool you use for daily work so there's no information break. If you don't have that yet, a spreadsheet works as a crutch. Just know it won't make anyone happy for long.

Getting started

1
Introduce GPS
Even if you use OKRs already, don't skip this step. The terminology and the explicit separation of positioning from strategy will change how people think about goals.
2
Start at the top
Define the highest-scope GPS first. Everything else derives from there. If the top isn't clear, nothing below will align.
3
Set up the rhythm
Pick a tool to track goals (ideally the same one used for daily work). Set up recurring meetings for strategizing, check-ins, and reviews at each scope.
4
Train leads in pitching
Create a simple pitch template: cycle GPS (Goal, Positioning, Strategy) and Investment ask. Clarify who acts as investment board at each scope.
5
Facilitate, then step back
Support teams by facilitating their first few strategizing sessions. Help them get the rhythm. Then let the process carry itself.

Goal Alignment Frameworks Compared

Four approaches to aligning direction. Same challenge, different trade-offs.

GPS
New Work by Design
OKR
Intel / Google
Shape Up
Basecamp
EOS Rocks
Gino Wickman
Core components
What you write down
 Goal + Positioning + Strategy at each time scale Objective + Key Results (+ Initiatives, added later by practitioners) Pitch (problem + appetite + solution boundaries) 10-year target → 3-year picture → 1-year plan → 90-day Rocks
Time scales
How far out you look
 Three: infinite, cycle (1 week–1 year), immediate (hours–days) One: quarterly (sometimes annual) One: fixed 6-week cycles + 2-week cooldown Four: 10-year, 3-year, 1-year, 90-day (executed via Weekly To-Dos)
Who sets direction
Where goals come from
 Each scope proposes cycle goals as investment pitches. The scope above acts as investment board. Varies. Cascaded top-down, bottom-up, or bidirectional depending on implementation. Leadership selects pitches at the betting table. Anyone can pitch, but leadership decides. Cascaded top-down. Leadership sets company Rocks, departments derive theirs.
How progress is tracked
What tells you where you are
 Metrics on a spectrum (current → target). One metric at infinite level, multiple at cycle level. Observable states at immediate level. Key Results: measurable outcomes, typically 3–5 per objective. Scored 0–1.0. Hill charts: uphill (figuring out) → downhill (executing). No metrics. Binary: on track / off track. Weekly L10 pulse check.
Role of strategy
How you decide what to do
 Explicit, separate artifact. Decision guide for forks, not a task list. Described as a visual map. Not native to the original model. 'Initiatives' are often added, but usually degrade into rigid task lists rather than true strategic guidelines. Implicit in the shaped pitch. Boundaries ("what's in, what's out") guide the team. Not explicit. The Rock itself acts as both goal and implied strategy.
Positioning vs. Strategy
Are they separated?
 Explicitly separated. Positioning stays stable as reference point. Strategy adapts freely. Blurred. Key Results mix "where we are" with "how we get there." No separation. Partially. Appetite sets the constraint. Hill chart tracks confidence, not metrics. Approach is free. Not separated. Rocks conflate destination and path.
When things stall
What happens when progress stops
 Explicit sequence: change strategy first → adjust positioning → rethink goal. Cheapest change first. No prescribed adaptation sequence. Check-ins happen but there's no explicit protocol for what to change first. Cut scope, don't extend time. If it doesn't ship, it returns to the pitch pile for re-betting. Surface in weekly L10. IDS process (Identify, Discuss, Solve). Rock stays fixed.
Cycle length
How it adapts
 Variable: matched to maturity stage. 1 week (ideate) → 1 year (mature). Fixed: quarterly. Some orgs add annual layer. Fixed: 6 weeks. No exceptions. Fixed: 90 days.
Autonomy model
Who decides how
 High. Executor writes their own GPS. Scope above sets the constraint, everything inside is yours. Depends on implementation. Ranges from heavy top-down cascade to full team ownership. High within cycle. Team has full autonomy over execution. Zero between cycles: betting table decides what's next. Low. Strong accountability culture. Prescriptive meeting structure and cascading priorities.
Best suited for
Path certainty assumed
 The destination is stable but the path will change. You need to navigate, not just track. The destination is clear, measurable, and the path is trusted enough to commit to outcomes for a fixed period. The problem is understood well enough to bound the investment, but the solution path is open within that boundary. Priorities are obvious and the main risk is distraction, not uncertainty. The path is known, you just need focus.
Why separate positioning from strategy? When the two are mixed, changing your approach feels like admitting failure. People stick with broken strategies because changing them means changing their "goals." Separating them gives explicit permission to adapt the route while keeping the destination stable. This is the structural insight that GPS adds to the conversation.

These frameworks aren't mutually exclusive. GPS absorbs OKR terminology: Goal = Objective, Positioning = Key Results, Strategy = Initiatives. If you already use OKRs, GPS adds the missing strategy layer and the infinite time scale without replacing what works.