SMART Objectives

People or organisations are best motivated by a mix of headline objectives that, collectively, underpin some kind of exciting vision that they would like to realise. The mix is ideally a careful blend of different types of goals that are sufficiently challenging and potentially rewarding to generate enthusiasm whilst not being so demanding or threatening as to elicit unproductive defensiveness.

The acronym 'SMART' has been used widely to explain effective objective-setting. There has however been some differences of opinion about what SMART means. The approach here is to give two meanings to the 'A', both of which are highly pertinent.

In the notes below we look first at 'SMART' with respect to setting individual objectives and then, in discussing visions, we look at the wider context, of how mixes of inter-dependent objectives can shape major projects involving multiple, diverse stakeholder groups.

An alternative take on 'SMART'

The objective must be directly related to the outcome that will be measured. For example, the objective, 'To contribute to a 10% reduction in UK CO2 between 2000 and 2015', is not specific enough for all but the most general of policy statements, as both the extent of 'contribution' and the interplay between this and innumerable independent , uncontrollable variables is unclear. A specific objective might, for example, be, 'To reduce the C02 emissions per passenger mile on Bradford's buses by 25%, between 2000 and 2015, whilst retaining the same capacity of bus-fleet. 

'If you cannot measure it, you cannot manage it'. Measurements might be either quantitative, or qualitative. Either way, a good objective's measurements must be verifiable. 

Ultimately, in most situations, there should be a mix of objectives (Along the lines of a 'balanced scorecard' discussed elsewhere) some which can be measured in a numerical sense (Height, wealth, relative size, etc.) and some which can be measured from a qualitative or sense of opinion (happiness, attractiveness, customer satisfaction, etc.). 

There is no point in setting objectives and all that is necessary to measure and learn from their attainment or otherwise, unless this is justified  by the objective being sufficiently ambitious to 'stretch' the limits of what is currently known as eminently attainable. The objective needs to be sufficiently ambitious, exciting and potentially rewarding, to motivate stakeholders to apply their best efforts to it.

This is the counterpart to Ambitious. Agreed objectives should motivate excellent effort, but they should not de-motivate through being plainly unrealistic.

The objective has to be relevant to the organisation's primary purpose, such as: sustainable growing profitability; effecting beneficial change within the community or, the realisation of personal health and happiness. The key here is to avoid distractions.

The objective has to be set within a practicable time-frame. The objective should not be too short, as to deny opportunities for latitude and innovation in its pursuit, or to over-burden the objective-based effort with 'administrative overhead'. The objective should also not be too long term, either with respect to:

• the higher objectives the activity is set to serve (There is no point in setting a target to build a temporary school in 2 years, when it is needed in 6 months) 
• the dynamics of the environment in which the objective is set (A fashion company's 'summer collection' needs to be ready for the winter trade shows) 
• or to risk 'scope creep' and a loss of focus (Without reasonable, time-based, control limits, there is a risk that project teams will lose focus and motivation). 

Where objectives are long-term, it is good practice to remove risks of 'slippage', 'creep' and focus, by agreeing 'milestone' sub-objectives, which conform to SMART, as timed benchmarks to measure progress toward the larger objective, so that remedial action can be taken where it is apparent that there has been a problem in meeting these.

V.SMART (Very SMART) Objectives

Where practicable it is preferable to pursue what Seedgen calls 'V.SMART' objectives. The SMART elements remain the same, but before these are explored and agreed by the stakeholders setting them, the headline 'Vision' of what the SMART objectives are supposedly contributing to, are openly explored first. 

In this way, a project may be broken down into multiple, possibly hundreds of unique SMART objectives, whose interdependencies will shape the program, but each may share a common headline 'Vision' element, which places then in a universally understood context.

This can have many beneficial outcomes, promoting  both the potency of the set objectives and their 'relevant ambitiousness'.

By openly talking through, as a group of stakeholders, the visions they wish to realize, over various milestones and then at the end of their project's time-frame, crucial differences of opinion can be brought to light and either accepted or resolved. 

Key pieces of additional relevant information can be fed to the objective-setting team by the individual 'experts' that have come together to form the team. 

In certain settings, a series of initial 'visioning' meetings facilitated between the diverse stakeholders that will be involved with the lifetime of the project can halve or quarter its lifetime costs. This is because appropriate 'talk-throughs' can help identify potential future risks to the project as currently perceived. The more such risks are identified and understood upfront, prior to any major contracts being awarded the better, as once key design, build, finance and operate contracts are signed, retrospective revisions to them can be hideously expensive.

Having collectively verbalized and 'walked through' or, in some workshop settings, even acted out 'the vision', it is then a lot easier to trace back to the present day and agree ambitious but practicable milestone steps, or contract clauses, that may need to also be agreed and reviewed, to help ensure the overall project stays on track to meet with success.

Depending on the nature of the project, regular follow-on milestone visioning meetings may also be relevant in ensuring that the overall 'vision' sustaining headline, SMART objectives is still pertinent. This is particularly the case for major capital projects, or any project with a lifespan of more than two to three years.

If, as will often be the case with a long term project, a milestone meeting agrees, 'the world has moved on', it may then be appropriate to 're-vision' the overall project's targeted output and the set of objectives leading up to this, which acknowledges the resources committed to and acquired to-date, plus the commitments still standing up to the end of the overall project,.

Rather than ending up with project outputs that are no longer so desirable, this re-visioning exercise can result in getting the best, most relevant revised outcome, from the overall project.

In the light of changed circumstances, these revisions can, particularly where there is an opportunity to 'piggy-back' on the beneficial outcome of previously unforeseen events, often result in far superior outcomes than originally perceived, for less than originally anticipated,  overall project costs.

The cultural predisposition for some long-term project groups to 'stick to their guns', rather than adapt to changed circumstances is a knee-jerk reaction to the way in which many infamous projects have in the past, gone horrendously over-budget and under-performed relative to original targets, partly through changing their specifications, mid-project. (E.g. Nimrod, The Child Support Agency's IT system; The British Library; Scotland's Holyrood Building; etc.) 

The critical issue with most of these 'under-performers' was that they were never sufficiently well 'envisioned' at their outset. Subsequently, as the projects got underway, any seemingly SMART objectives that had been set without the prior 'Visioning' process, probably succumbed to mass-confusion as the various project stakeholders worked with reference to their respective individual, but never quite universal perceptions of what was required.