One of the goals I have with this blog is to examine the processes that we currently follow. To track the history of them. I hope to find out if there is any basis for the reasons we use them or if it’s just more ritual without reason.

When setting goals we are told to use the SMART method for defining them. Originally defined by George T. Doran as S.M.A.R.T. in Management Review1. These goals should be Specific, Measurable, Assignable, Realistic, Time-related . It’s gone through several incarnations and Wikipedia2 lists the current meaning as Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, Time-bound . There are others but this list works for my discussion.

In my opinion, the purpose of SMART goal criteria is to focus on concrete items that you can say without a doubt whether or not you have succeeded. By making a concrete goal you’ve hit.

This sounds reasonable, but what’s the basis for the recommendation? And is there any evidence that it actually makes a difference?

The original text is only two pages. The first quarter of the document discusses the definition of goal, culminating in: “Goals represent unique executive beliefs and philosophies.” Half of the document is examples of objectives and goals, then about the anxiety managers feel when being asked to write documents. The last quarter finally gets to the definition of the S.M.A.R.T acronym:

Quote “

  • Specific — target a specific area for improvement.

  • Measurable — quantify or at least suggest an indicator for progress.

  • Assignable — specify who will do it.

  • Realistic — state what results can realistically be achieved, given available resources.

  • Time-related — specify when the result(s) can be achieved.”

Then goes on to finish by saying not all objectives can be quantified, and that objectives don’t need all five criteria. Simply that this is a measuring tool to help you know when your goals are of a higher quality.

In fact there is no mention of any study on the effect of writing goals in this way. Even the author stating that this is based on personal experience would be a data point. Instead it’s take as writ that this is correct.

Looking through the Wikipedia page shows that this meme has taken on a lift of itself. Several different extensions and modifications to the original format have be proposed. So far I can’t find any actual study of the effectiveness of SMART goals.

This meme has been echoed for the past thirty-four years. So many people have heard some variation of SMART that it’s now taken on a life of it’s own. People just assume it’s correct. We need to start questioning these methods, and looking for ways to either validate it or move on.

[1] “There’s a S.M.A.R.T. Way to Write Management’s Goals and Objectives” Doran, George T. Management Review. Nov81, Vol. 70 Issue 11, p35. 2p.

[2] “SMART criteria” Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Date retrieved: 17 June 2015 20:49 UTC, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SMART_criteria&oldid=667379380