Strategy-to-Project Traceability & OKR Alignment

TL;DR: Maps project portfolios to organizational strategy ensuring every project contributes to strategic objectives. Uses OKR (Objectives and Key Results) framework or balanced scorecard to create traceable links from strategic goals to portfolio investment to project deliverables. Identifies strategic orphans (projects without strategic justification) and coverage gaps (strategic goals without project support).

Principio Rector

Un proyecto que no contribuye a la estrategia organizacional es una distracción elegante. La alineación estratégica no es un checklist al inicio del proyecto — es una validación continua de que la inversión sigue generando valor estratégico. Cuando la estrategia pivotea, los proyectos deben pivotar o justificar su continuación.

Assumptions & Limits

• Assumes organizational strategic plan with objectives is documented [PLAN]
• Assumes OKRs or equivalent goal framework exists [SUPUESTO]
• Breaks when organization has no documented strategy — alignment requires a reference point
• Does not create strategy; maps projects to it. Strategy creation is an executive function
• Assumes portfolio of active projects is known and accessible [PLAN]
• Limited to strategy-project alignment; for strategy execution use transformation skills

Usage

# Full strategic alignment analysis
/pm:strategic-alignment $ARGUMENTS="--strategy strategy-plan.md --portfolio portfolio.md"

# Orphan project detection
/pm:strategic-alignment --type orphan-scan --portfolio portfolio.md

# Coverage gap analysis
/pm:strategic-alignment --type coverage --strategy strategy-plan.md

Parameters:

Parameter	Required	Description
$ARGUMENTS	Yes	Path to strategy document and portfolio
--type	No	full (default), orphan-scan, coverage, drift-detection
--portfolio	No	Path to portfolio of active projects
--strategy	No	Path to organizational strategy document

Service Type Routing

{TIPO_PROYECTO}: Portfolio uses strategic alignment for investment decisions; PMO uses it for project justification; Digital-Transformation maps to transformation vision; All types validate strategic contribution.

Before Aligning

1. Read the organizational strategic plan to understand objectives and key results [PLAN]
2. Read portfolio of active and proposed projects with their charters [PLAN]
3. Glob **/OKR* or **/balanced_scorecard* to find goal frameworks [PLAN]
4. Grep for strategic alignment claims in project charters [INFERENCIA]

Entrada (Input Requirements)

• Organizational strategic plan with objectives
• OKRs or balanced scorecard
• Portfolio of active and proposed projects
• Project charters with objectives
• Investment themes and budget allocation

Proceso (Protocol)

1. Strategy decomposition — Break down strategic objectives into measurable key results
2. Project mapping — Map each project to strategic objectives it supports
3. Coverage analysis — Identify strategic goals with insufficient project support
4. Orphan detection — Identify projects without clear strategic justification
5. Investment alignment — Compare budget allocation vs. strategic priority areas
6. Contribution scoring — Rate each project's contribution to strategic objectives
7. Drift detection — Identify projects whose strategic alignment has weakened
8. Rebalancing recommendations — Suggest portfolio adjustments for better alignment
9. Visualization — Create strategy-to-project traceability map (Mermaid)
10. Ongoing monitoring — Establish quarterly alignment review cadence

Edge Cases

1. >20% of portfolio has no strategic alignment — Trigger portfolio review. Each orphan project needs justification or termination recommendation. Present opportunity cost analysis [METRIC].
2. Strategy changes mid-cycle — Trigger full realignment. All projects must re-validate strategic contribution. Recommend portfolio rebalancing [PLAN].
3. Strategic objective with zero project support — Flag as coverage gap. Recommend project initiation or reallocation of existing project scope to address the gap [PLAN].
4. Project aligned to multiple strategic objectives — Score contribution per objective. Primary alignment determines portfolio categorization. Secondary alignments are benefits, not justification [INFERENCIA].

Example: Good vs Bad

Good example — Quantified strategic alignment:

Attribute	Value
Strategic objectives	6 objectives with measurable key results
Projects mapped	12 projects with contribution scores
Coverage	All 6 objectives have ≥1 supporting project
Orphans	1 orphan project identified (recommendation: terminate)
Investment	Budget allocation matches strategic priority within ±10%
Drift	2 projects with weakening alignment flagged for review

Bad example — Alignment theater: "All projects are strategically aligned" with no scoring, no coverage analysis, no orphan detection. Without contribution scoring, alignment claims are untested assertions. Every project can claim alignment to a vague strategy.

Salida (Deliverables)

• Strategy-to-project alignment matrix
• Coverage gap analysis
• Strategic orphan list
• Investment vs. strategy allocation chart
• Rebalancing recommendations

Validation Gate

• Every project mapped to ≥1 strategic objective with contribution score [PLAN]
• Coverage analysis identifies objectives with insufficient project support [PLAN]
• Orphan projects identified with recommendation (justify, pivot, or terminate) [PLAN]
• Investment allocation compared to strategic priority weighting [METRIC]
• Contribution scoring applied consistently across all projects [METRIC]
• Drift detection identifies projects with weakening alignment [INFERENCIA]
• Traceability visualization (Mermaid) shows strategy-project connections [PLAN]
• Quarterly review cadence established [SCHEDULE]
• Evidence ratio: ≥80% [PLAN]/[METRIC], <20% [SUPUESTO]
• Rebalancing recommendations quantify trade-offs [METRIC]

Escalation Triggers

• More than 20% of portfolio has no strategic alignment
• Strategic objective with zero project support
• Budget allocation misaligned with strategic priorities by > 25%
• Strategy change requiring portfolio rebalancing

Additional Resources

Resource	When to Read	Location
Body of Knowledge	Portfolio alignment and OKR frameworks	references/body-of-knowledge.md
State of the Art	Modern strategy execution practices	references/state-of-the-art.md
Knowledge Graph	Strategic alignment in portfolio governance	references/knowledge-graph.mmd
Use Case Prompts	Alignment analysis scenarios	prompts/use-case-prompts.md
Metaprompts	Custom alignment frameworks	prompts/metaprompts.md
Sample Output	Reference alignment matrix	examples/sample-output.md

Output Configuration

• Language: Spanish (Latin American, business register)
• Evidence: [PLAN], [SCHEDULE], [METRIC], [INFERENCIA], [SUPUESTO], [STAKEHOLDER]
• Branding: #2563EB royal blue, #F59E0B amber (NEVER green), #0F172A dark

---

---

Sub-Agents

Alignment Scorer

Alignment Scorer Agent

Core Responsibility

Scores alignment strength: direct contribution, indirect contribution, or no alignment per objective. This agent operates autonomously within the strategic alignment domain, applying systematic analysis and producing structured outputs that integrate with the broader project management framework.

Process

1. Gather Inputs. Collect all relevant data, documents, and stakeholder inputs needed for analysis. Validate data quality and completeness before proceeding.
2. Analyze Context. Assess the project context, methodology, phase, and constraints that influence the analysis approach and output requirements.
3. Apply Framework. Apply the appropriate analytical framework, methodology, or model specific to this domain area with calibrated rigor.
4. Generate Findings. Produce detailed findings with evidence tags, quantified impacts where possible, and clear categorization by severity or priority.
5. Validate Results. Cross-check findings against related project artifacts for consistency and flag any contradictions or gaps discovered.
6. Formulate Recommendations. Transform findings into actionable recommendations with owners, timelines, and success criteria.
7. Deliver Output. Produce the final structured output in the standard format with executive summary, detailed analysis, and action items.

Output Format

• Analysis Report — Structured findings with evidence tags, severity ratings, and cross-references.
• Recommendation Register — Actionable items with owners, deadlines, and success criteria.
• Executive Summary — 3-5 bullet point summary for stakeholder communication.

Gap Identifier

Gap Identifier Agent

Core Responsibility

Identifies strategic themes not addressed by any current project — strategic coverage gaps. This agent operates autonomously within the strategic alignment domain, applying systematic analysis and producing structured outputs that integrate with the broader project management framework.

Process

1. Gather Inputs. Collect all relevant data, documents, and stakeholder inputs needed for analysis. Validate data quality and completeness before proceeding.
2. Analyze Context. Assess the project context, methodology, phase, and constraints that influence the analysis approach and output requirements.
3. Apply Framework. Apply the appropriate analytical framework, methodology, or model specific to this domain area with calibrated rigor.
4. Generate Findings. Produce detailed findings with evidence tags, quantified impacts where possible, and clear categorization by severity or priority.
5. Validate Results. Cross-check findings against related project artifacts for consistency and flag any contradictions or gaps discovered.
6. Formulate Recommendations. Transform findings into actionable recommendations with owners, timelines, and success criteria.
7. Deliver Output. Produce the final structured output in the standard format with executive summary, detailed analysis, and action items.

Output Format

• Analysis Report — Structured findings with evidence tags, severity ratings, and cross-references.
• Recommendation Register — Actionable items with owners, deadlines, and success criteria.
• Executive Summary — 3-5 bullet point summary for stakeholder communication.

Objective Mapper

Objective Mapper Agent

Core Responsibility

Maps project deliverables to organizational strategic objectives and OKRs. This agent operates autonomously within the strategic alignment domain, applying systematic analysis and producing structured outputs that integrate with the broader project management framework.

Process

1. Gather Inputs. Collect all relevant data, documents, and stakeholder inputs needed for analysis. Validate data quality and completeness before proceeding.
2. Analyze Context. Assess the project context, methodology, phase, and constraints that influence the analysis approach and output requirements.
3. Apply Framework. Apply the appropriate analytical framework, methodology, or model specific to this domain area with calibrated rigor.
4. Generate Findings. Produce detailed findings with evidence tags, quantified impacts where possible, and clear categorization by severity or priority.
5. Validate Results. Cross-check findings against related project artifacts for consistency and flag any contradictions or gaps discovered.
6. Formulate Recommendations. Transform findings into actionable recommendations with owners, timelines, and success criteria.
7. Deliver Output. Produce the final structured output in the standard format with executive summary, detailed analysis, and action items.

Output Format

• Analysis Report — Structured findings with evidence tags, severity ratings, and cross-references.
• Recommendation Register — Actionable items with owners, deadlines, and success criteria.
• Executive Summary — 3-5 bullet point summary for stakeholder communication.

Okr Connector

Okr Connector Agent

Core Responsibility

Connects project KPIs to organizational OKRs ensuring project success contributes to organizational success. This agent operates autonomously within the strategic alignment domain, applying systematic analysis and producing structured outputs that integrate with the broader project management framework.

Process

1. Gather Inputs. Collect all relevant data, documents, and stakeholder inputs needed for analysis. Validate data quality and completeness before proceeding.
2. Analyze Context. Assess the project context, methodology, phase, and constraints that influence the analysis approach and output requirements.
3. Apply Framework. Apply the appropriate analytical framework, methodology, or model specific to this domain area with calibrated rigor.
4. Generate Findings. Produce detailed findings with evidence tags, quantified impacts where possible, and clear categorization by severity or priority.
5. Validate Results. Cross-check findings against related project artifacts for consistency and flag any contradictions or gaps discovered.
6. Formulate Recommendations. Transform findings into actionable recommendations with owners, timelines, and success criteria.
7. Deliver Output. Produce the final structured output in the standard format with executive summary, detailed analysis, and action items.

Output Format

• Analysis Report — Structured findings with evidence tags, severity ratings, and cross-references.
• Recommendation Register — Actionable items with owners, deadlines, and success criteria.
• Executive Summary — 3-5 bullet point summary for stakeholder communication.