Most companies think they’re ready for a framework like CBC because they already have “goal-setting” rituals: OKRs taped to the wall, KPIs in a dashboard no one checks, or quarterly “strategy” docs that age like milk. Readiness isn’t about whether you can spell “accountability,” it’s about whether your company has the stomach for it. CBC doesn’t care about your lofty goals and the lip service around them. It cares about whether you can face reality, commit in writing, and live with consequences.

What Readiness Really Means

CBC requires more discipline than most organizations are used to. The real test of readiness is whether you’re willing to confront common execution failures head-on:

• Chronic scope creep. Projects expand mid-flight because deliverables were never nailed down upfront.
• Dependency bottlenecks. Teams stall when their work depends on someone else’s shifting priorities.
• Diffuse accountability. With OKRs, “progress” can be claimed by everyone, but ownership disappears when results fall short.
• Optics over outcomes. Dashboards show green, but the work that matters isn’t actually shipped.

If these problems sound familiar, CBC was created for you (your organization, and your work process). It forces clarity before execution and creates accountability you can measure, not just talk about.

Startups: The Myth of Speed

In startups, the default excuse is: “We’re too small for process.” Translation: you’re running on chaos and hoping adrenaline scales. A five-person startup can burn six months chasing “north star metrics” that never turn into product.

• With OKRs: You set “Increase user engagement 50%” and everyone scrambles in different directions.
• With CBC: You draft an agreement: “Ship feature X by June 1, measured by N active users, owned by Jane.” Now everyone knows who’s on the hook and what “done” means.

The lesson: CBC doesn’t slow startups down. It prevents them from mistaking flailing for speed.

Midsize Companies: The Bermuda Triangle of Alignment

Midsize businesses love process—but usually the wrong kind. They’ve graduated from chaos to misalignment. Marketing is chasing brand growth, product is chasing features, and engineering is chasing technical debt reduction. They all “align” at quarterly planning, then scatter to do whatever makes them look good.

• With OKRs: Teams write goals that “ladder up,” but nobody negotiates trade-offs. Dependencies get discovered halfway through the quarter.
• With CBC: Marketing, product, and engineering sign a joint agreement: “Launch new onboarding flow by Q3, requiring backend API from engineering by July 1.” When engineering slips, it’s visible. When marketing isn’t ready, it’s visible. No Bermuda Triangle—just accountability.

Enterprises: Bureaucracy with Expensive Makeup

Enterprises think they’re sophisticated because they have KPIs, OKRs, OKRs for KPIs, and entire “program management offices” to track them. But all that ceremony doesn’t stop projects from overrunning by quarters or years.

• With OKRs: Everyone claims progress: “We’re 80% to our key result.” Translation: nothing usable is shipped.
• With CBC: A cross-team contract says: “Finance must deliver integration by Sept 30 for Compliance to meet legal deadline.” If Finance misses, the failure is documented and escalation is triggered—not swept under a “lessons learned” deck.

Enterprises don’t need more dashboards. They need enforceable agreements that expose when leaders fail, not just when teams do.

Takeaway

CBC readiness isn’t about maturity level—it’s about tolerance for clarity and accountability. Startups need it to avoid chaos, midsize companies to fix misalignment, and enterprises to cut through bureaucracy. If your company can’t stomach real commitments, stick with OKRs. If you want results, CBC is the upgrade.