SMART goals: A project management tool - Revision history

S173741: /* Time-bound */

2021-02-28T12:49:26Z

Time-bound

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:49, 28 February 2021
Line 84:		Line 84:

	*When is it relevant?		*When is it relevant?
	*When ~~are~~ the ~~deadlines~~?		*When is the deadline?

	== Application of SMART goals: A practical example ==		== Application of SMART goals: A practical example ==

S173741: /* SMART goals */

2021-02-28T12:41:18Z

SMART goals

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:41, 28 February 2021
Line 16:		Line 16:

	=== SMART goals ===		=== SMART goals ===
	Due to the importance of an effective goal setting technique in organisational performance management, the main principles of SMART goals were introduced for the first time in 1981 by George Doran<ref name="doran" /> and are in many ways similar to the principles established by Locke and Latham. Since its first introduction, there have been made a couple of adjustments to the acronym SMART. Today, the current state-of-art is generally accepted as:<ref> ''How to Make Your Goals''. https://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/smart-goals.htm </ref>		Due to the importance of an effective goal setting technique in organisational performance management, the main principles of SMART goals were introduced for the first time in 1981 by George Doran<ref name="doran" /> and are in many ways similar to the principles established by Locke and Latham. Since its first introduction, there have been made a couple of adjustments to the acronym SMART. Today, the current state-of-the-art is generally accepted as:<ref> ''How to Make Your Goals''. https://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/smart-goals.htm </ref>

	[[File:SMART_figur.PNG\|500px\|thumb\|right\|Process of establishing SMART goals. With inspiration from <ref> ''SMART Goals: Definition and Examples''. (2020). https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/smart-goals </ref>]]		[[File:SMART_figur.PNG\|500px\|thumb\|right\|Process of establishing SMART goals. With inspiration from <ref> ''SMART Goals: Definition and Examples''. (2020). https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/smart-goals </ref>]]

S173741: /* SMART goals */

2021-02-28T12:38:09Z

SMART goals

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:38, 28 February 2021
Line 34:		Line 34:
	Using the SMART criteria in goal-setting works best when the goal is ''to improve'' an existing system about which much is known. The criteria fit extremely well when some aspect of the company has deviated from normalcy in a negative way, and the task is to return that aspect to normal. Typical examples include increasing revenue, cutting costs or restoring production yield or quality. In each of these cases, using the SMART criteria to set good goals works because ambiguity about the situation is minimal, and the desired outcome is to restore the system to normal operation.<ref name="inno" > Prather, C. (2005). ''THE DUMB THING ABOUT SMART GOALS FOR INNOVATION''. Research Technology Management. Vol. 48. No. 5. pp. 14-15. https://www-jstor-org.proxy.findit.dtu.dk/stable/24134792?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents </ref>		Using the SMART criteria in goal-setting works best when the goal is ''to improve'' an existing system about which much is known. The criteria fit extremely well when some aspect of the company has deviated from normalcy in a negative way, and the task is to return that aspect to normal. Typical examples include increasing revenue, cutting costs or restoring production yield or quality. In each of these cases, using the SMART criteria to set good goals works because ambiguity about the situation is minimal, and the desired outcome is to restore the system to normal operation.<ref name="inno" > Prather, C. (2005). ''THE DUMB THING ABOUT SMART GOALS FOR INNOVATION''. Research Technology Management. Vol. 48. No. 5. pp. 14-15. https://www-jstor-org.proxy.findit.dtu.dk/stable/24134792?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents </ref>

	~~When~~ should the tool be used in project, programme and portfolio mangagement? In ISO 21500, it is stated: ''“The purpose of Define scope is to achieve clarity of the project scope, including objectives, deliverables, requirements and boundaries, by defining the end state of the project. The definition of project scope makes clear what the project will contribute to the strategic goals of the organization”''. <ref> ISO 21500. (2012). ''Guidance on Project Management'' </ref> As the definition of the scope is initiated in the planning phase of a project, SMART goals will typically be applied at this stage from a project management perspective. In programme and portfolio management, the scope tends to be more fluid than that of a project, as it is unlikely that solutions for all the projects within the programme/portfolio can be identified at the outset, and at the same time the business environment may change. Normally, a portfolio is distinguished between a standard and structured portfolio. A standard portfolio is an accumulation of projects and programmes with unconnected objectives. Its scope is flexible and is simply the sum of the projects and programmes it contains. In this case, it is inexpedient to use SMART goals as the scope is derived from a bottom-up approach. A structured portfolio is, however, defined by the strategic objectives of its host organisation that it is designed to satisfy. Its scope is the sum of the projects, programmes and change activity required to deliver those strategic objectives. In this context, the use of SMART goals is more apparent as defining the strategic objectives in the portfolio scope forms the basis for the initiated programmes and projects.<ref> Praxis. (n.d.). ''Scope management''. https://www.praxisframework.org/en/knowledge/scope-management </ref> In short, the appliance of SMART in programme or portfolio management should only be relevant if the scope is defined from a top-down approach. Even then, there may be some drawbacks to using the technique. These will be covered in the section 'Limitations'.		So when should the tool be used in project, programme and portfolio mangagement? In ISO 21500, it is stated: ''“The purpose of Define scope is to achieve clarity of the project scope, including objectives, deliverables, requirements and boundaries, by defining the end state of the project. The definition of project scope makes clear what the project will contribute to the strategic goals of the organization”''. <ref> ISO 21500. (2012). ''Guidance on Project Management'' </ref> As the definition of the scope is initiated in the planning phase of a project, SMART goals will typically be applied at this stage from a project management perspective. In programme and portfolio management, the scope tends to be more fluid than that of a project, as it is unlikely that solutions for all the projects within the programme/portfolio can be identified at the outset, and at the same time the business environment may change. Normally, a portfolio is distinguished between a standard and structured portfolio. A standard portfolio is an accumulation of projects and programmes with unconnected objectives. Its scope is flexible and is simply the sum of the projects and programmes it contains. In this case, it is inexpedient to use SMART goals as the scope is derived from a bottom-up approach. A structured portfolio is, however, defined by the strategic objectives of its host organisation that it is designed to satisfy. Its scope is the sum of the projects, programmes and change activity required to deliver those strategic objectives. In this context, the use of SMART goals is more apparent as defining the strategic objectives in the portfolio scope forms the basis for the initiated programmes and projects.<ref> Praxis. (n.d.). ''Scope management''. https://www.praxisframework.org/en/knowledge/scope-management </ref> In short, the appliance of SMART in programme or portfolio management should only be relevant if the scope is defined from a top-down approach. Even then, there may be some drawbacks to using the technique. These will be covered in the section 'Limitations'.

	==== Connection to standards ====		==== Connection to standards ====

S173741: /* SMART goals */

2021-02-28T12:37:36Z

SMART goals

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:37, 28 February 2021
Line 32:		Line 32:
	https://blog.capterra.com/10-smart-goal-setting-best-practices-for-project-planning/ Retrieved February 19th, 2021.</ref> or the Balanced Scorecard.<ref> Miller, R. (2012). ''Smart goals and goal setting for career enhancement''. https://jalt-publications.org/tlt/departments/job-info-centre/articles/1661-smart-goals-and-goal-setting-career-enhancement Retrieved February 19th, 2021. </ref> To summarize, its easy applicability and level of awareness combined with the positive resonance among users are some of the main reasons for the tool's success.		https://blog.capterra.com/10-smart-goal-setting-best-practices-for-project-planning/ Retrieved February 19th, 2021.</ref> or the Balanced Scorecard.<ref> Miller, R. (2012). ''Smart goals and goal setting for career enhancement''. https://jalt-publications.org/tlt/departments/job-info-centre/articles/1661-smart-goals-and-goal-setting-career-enhancement Retrieved February 19th, 2021. </ref> To summarize, its easy applicability and level of awareness combined with the positive resonance among users are some of the main reasons for the tool's success.

	Using the SMART criteria in goal-setting works best when the goal is ''to improve'' an existing system about which much is known. The criteria fit extremely well when some aspect of the company has deviated from normalcy in a negative way, and the task is to return that aspect to normal. Typical examples include increasing revenue, cutting costs or restoring production yield or quality. In each of these cases, using the SMART criteria to set good goals works because ambiguity about the situation is minimal, and the desired outcome is to restore the system to normal operation~~, or as a minimum, incremental improvement~~.<ref name="inno" > Prather, C. (2005). ''THE DUMB THING ABOUT SMART GOALS FOR INNOVATION''. Research Technology Management. Vol. 48. No. 5. pp. 14-15. https://www-jstor-org.proxy.findit.dtu.dk/stable/24134792?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents </ref>		Using the SMART criteria in goal-setting works best when the goal is ''to improve'' an existing system about which much is known. The criteria fit extremely well when some aspect of the company has deviated from normalcy in a negative way, and the task is to return that aspect to normal. Typical examples include increasing revenue, cutting costs or restoring production yield or quality. In each of these cases, using the SMART criteria to set good goals works because ambiguity about the situation is minimal, and the desired outcome is to restore the system to normal operation.<ref name="inno" > Prather, C. (2005). ''THE DUMB THING ABOUT SMART GOALS FOR INNOVATION''. Research Technology Management. Vol. 48. No. 5. pp. 14-15. https://www-jstor-org.proxy.findit.dtu.dk/stable/24134792?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents </ref>

	When should the tool be used in project, programme and portfolio mangagement? In ISO 21500, it is stated: ''“The purpose of Define scope is to achieve clarity of the project scope, including objectives, deliverables, requirements and boundaries, by defining the end state of the project. The definition of project scope makes clear what the project will contribute to the strategic goals of the organization”''. <ref> ISO 21500. (2012). ''Guidance on Project Management'' </ref> As the definition of the scope is initiated in the planning phase of a project, SMART goals will typically be applied at this stage from a project management perspective. In programme and portfolio management, the scope tends to be more fluid than that of a project, as it is unlikely that solutions for all the projects within the programme/portfolio can be identified at the outset, and at the same time the business environment may change. Normally, a portfolio is distinguished between a standard and structured portfolio. A standard portfolio is an accumulation of projects and programmes with unconnected objectives. Its scope is flexible and is simply the sum of the projects and programmes it contains. In this case, it is inexpedient to use SMART goals as the scope is derived from a bottom-up approach. A structured portfolio is, however, defined by the strategic objectives of its host organisation that it is designed to satisfy. Its scope is the sum of the projects, programmes and change activity required to deliver those strategic objectives. In this context, the use of SMART goals is more apparent as defining the strategic objectives in the portfolio scope forms the basis for the initiated programmes and projects.<ref> Praxis. (n.d.). ''Scope management''. https://www.praxisframework.org/en/knowledge/scope-management </ref> In short, the appliance of SMART in programme or portfolio management should only be relevant if the scope is defined from a top-down approach. Even then, there may be some drawbacks to using the technique. These will be covered in the section 'Limitations'.		When should the tool be used in project, programme and portfolio mangagement? In ISO 21500, it is stated: ''“The purpose of Define scope is to achieve clarity of the project scope, including objectives, deliverables, requirements and boundaries, by defining the end state of the project. The definition of project scope makes clear what the project will contribute to the strategic goals of the organization”''. <ref> ISO 21500. (2012). ''Guidance on Project Management'' </ref> As the definition of the scope is initiated in the planning phase of a project, SMART goals will typically be applied at this stage from a project management perspective. In programme and portfolio management, the scope tends to be more fluid than that of a project, as it is unlikely that solutions for all the projects within the programme/portfolio can be identified at the outset, and at the same time the business environment may change. Normally, a portfolio is distinguished between a standard and structured portfolio. A standard portfolio is an accumulation of projects and programmes with unconnected objectives. Its scope is flexible and is simply the sum of the projects and programmes it contains. In this case, it is inexpedient to use SMART goals as the scope is derived from a bottom-up approach. A structured portfolio is, however, defined by the strategic objectives of its host organisation that it is designed to satisfy. Its scope is the sum of the projects, programmes and change activity required to deliver those strategic objectives. In this context, the use of SMART goals is more apparent as defining the strategic objectives in the portfolio scope forms the basis for the initiated programmes and projects.<ref> Praxis. (n.d.). ''Scope management''. https://www.praxisframework.org/en/knowledge/scope-management </ref> In short, the appliance of SMART in programme or portfolio management should only be relevant if the scope is defined from a top-down approach. Even then, there may be some drawbacks to using the technique. These will be covered in the section 'Limitations'.

S173741: /* SMART goals */

2021-02-28T12:36:39Z

SMART goals

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:36, 28 February 2021
Line 32:		Line 32:
	https://blog.capterra.com/10-smart-goal-setting-best-practices-for-project-planning/ Retrieved February 19th, 2021.</ref> or the Balanced Scorecard.<ref> Miller, R. (2012). ''Smart goals and goal setting for career enhancement''. https://jalt-publications.org/tlt/departments/job-info-centre/articles/1661-smart-goals-and-goal-setting-career-enhancement Retrieved February 19th, 2021. </ref> To summarize, its easy applicability and level of awareness combined with the positive resonance among users are some of the main reasons for the tool's success.		https://blog.capterra.com/10-smart-goal-setting-best-practices-for-project-planning/ Retrieved February 19th, 2021.</ref> or the Balanced Scorecard.<ref> Miller, R. (2012). ''Smart goals and goal setting for career enhancement''. https://jalt-publications.org/tlt/departments/job-info-centre/articles/1661-smart-goals-and-goal-setting-career-enhancement Retrieved February 19th, 2021. </ref> To summarize, its easy applicability and level of awareness combined with the positive resonance among users are some of the main reasons for the tool's success.

	Using the SMART criteria in goal-setting works best when the goal is to improve an existing system about which much is known. The criteria fit extremely well when some aspect of the company has deviated from normalcy in a negative way, and the task is to return that aspect to normal. Typical examples include increasing revenue, cutting costs or restoring production yield or quality. In each of these cases, using the SMART criteria to set good goals works because ambiguity about the situation is minimal, and the desired outcome is to restore the system to normal operation, or as a minimum, incremental improvement.<ref name="inno" > Prather, C. (2005). ''THE DUMB THING ABOUT SMART GOALS FOR INNOVATION''. Research Technology Management. Vol. 48. No. 5. pp. 14-15. https://www-jstor-org.proxy.findit.dtu.dk/stable/24134792?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents </ref>		Using the SMART criteria in goal-setting works best when the goal is ''to improve'' an existing system about which much is known. The criteria fit extremely well when some aspect of the company has deviated from normalcy in a negative way, and the task is to return that aspect to normal. Typical examples include increasing revenue, cutting costs or restoring production yield or quality. In each of these cases, using the SMART criteria to set good goals works because ambiguity about the situation is minimal, and the desired outcome is to restore the system to normal operation, or as a minimum, incremental improvement.<ref name="inno" > Prather, C. (2005). ''THE DUMB THING ABOUT SMART GOALS FOR INNOVATION''. Research Technology Management. Vol. 48. No. 5. pp. 14-15. https://www-jstor-org.proxy.findit.dtu.dk/stable/24134792?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents </ref>

	When should the tool be used in project, programme and portfolio mangagement? In ISO 21500, it is stated: ''“The purpose of Define scope is to achieve clarity of the project scope, including objectives, deliverables, requirements and boundaries, by defining the end state of the project. The definition of project scope makes clear what the project will contribute to the strategic goals of the organization”''. <ref> ISO 21500. (2012). ''Guidance on Project Management'' </ref> As the definition of the scope is initiated in the planning phase of a project, SMART goals will typically be applied at this stage from a project management perspective. In programme and portfolio management, the scope tends to be more fluid than that of a project, as it is unlikely that solutions for all the projects within the programme/portfolio can be identified at the outset, and at the same time the business environment may change. Normally, a portfolio is distinguished between a standard and structured portfolio. A standard portfolio is an accumulation of projects and programmes with unconnected objectives. Its scope is flexible and is simply the sum of the projects and programmes it contains. In this case, it is inexpedient to use SMART goals as the scope is derived from a bottom-up approach. A structured portfolio is, however, defined by the strategic objectives of its host organisation that it is designed to satisfy. Its scope is the sum of the projects, programmes and change activity required to deliver those strategic objectives. In this context, the use of SMART goals is more apparent as defining the strategic objectives in the portfolio scope forms the basis for the initiated programmes and projects.<ref> Praxis. (n.d.). ''Scope management''. https://www.praxisframework.org/en/knowledge/scope-management </ref> In short, the appliance of SMART in programme or portfolio management should only be relevant if the scope is defined from a top-down approach. Even then, there may be some drawbacks to using the technique. These will be covered in the section 'Limitations'.		When should the tool be used in project, programme and portfolio mangagement? In ISO 21500, it is stated: ''“The purpose of Define scope is to achieve clarity of the project scope, including objectives, deliverables, requirements and boundaries, by defining the end state of the project. The definition of project scope makes clear what the project will contribute to the strategic goals of the organization”''. <ref> ISO 21500. (2012). ''Guidance on Project Management'' </ref> As the definition of the scope is initiated in the planning phase of a project, SMART goals will typically be applied at this stage from a project management perspective. In programme and portfolio management, the scope tends to be more fluid than that of a project, as it is unlikely that solutions for all the projects within the programme/portfolio can be identified at the outset, and at the same time the business environment may change. Normally, a portfolio is distinguished between a standard and structured portfolio. A standard portfolio is an accumulation of projects and programmes with unconnected objectives. Its scope is flexible and is simply the sum of the projects and programmes it contains. In this case, it is inexpedient to use SMART goals as the scope is derived from a bottom-up approach. A structured portfolio is, however, defined by the strategic objectives of its host organisation that it is designed to satisfy. Its scope is the sum of the projects, programmes and change activity required to deliver those strategic objectives. In this context, the use of SMART goals is more apparent as defining the strategic objectives in the portfolio scope forms the basis for the initiated programmes and projects.<ref> Praxis. (n.d.). ''Scope management''. https://www.praxisframework.org/en/knowledge/scope-management </ref> In short, the appliance of SMART in programme or portfolio management should only be relevant if the scope is defined from a top-down approach. Even then, there may be some drawbacks to using the technique. These will be covered in the section 'Limitations'.

S173741: /* Limitations */

2021-02-28T12:34:15Z

Limitations

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:34, 28 February 2021
Line 201:		Line 201:
	# '''The method does not take conflicting goals into account'''. While goals can sometimes be mutually reinforcing, they can also be in direct conflict with one another. The SMART method is often criticised for not taking into account conflicting goals such as organisational, environmental and ethical perspectives due to its discrete framework. For example, if the performance of a customer service agent is measured in terms of number of customers served, the agent may deliberately shorten conversations at the expense of customer satisfaction in order to meet the prescribed target. In SMART goals, there is no accounting of the cause-and-effect relationship between the goal and its wider impact like in, for example, the Balanced Scorecard. Highly specific goals may create a sense of tunnel vision and cause teams to focus on one area of a business while neglecting other aspects. Therefore, organizational objectives tied to a reward system can affect a company's culture, create workplace conflicts and promote unethical behavior. In addition to this, SMART does not have any evaluation step (for example, when a goal is no longer desirable or circumstances shift). For these reasons, some have suggested the model should be changed to '''SMARTER''' (E – Ethical / R – Re-evaluate).<ref name="lim" />		# '''The method does not take conflicting goals into account'''. While goals can sometimes be mutually reinforcing, they can also be in direct conflict with one another. The SMART method is often criticised for not taking into account conflicting goals such as organisational, environmental and ethical perspectives due to its discrete framework. For example, if the performance of a customer service agent is measured in terms of number of customers served, the agent may deliberately shorten conversations at the expense of customer satisfaction in order to meet the prescribed target. In SMART goals, there is no accounting of the cause-and-effect relationship between the goal and its wider impact like in, for example, the Balanced Scorecard. Highly specific goals may create a sense of tunnel vision and cause teams to focus on one area of a business while neglecting other aspects. Therefore, organizational objectives tied to a reward system can affect a company's culture, create workplace conflicts and promote unethical behavior. In addition to this, SMART does not have any evaluation step (for example, when a goal is no longer desirable or circumstances shift). For these reasons, some have suggested the model should be changed to '''SMARTER''' (E – Ethical / R – Re-evaluate).<ref name="lim" />
	# '''It encourages a simplistic and short-sighted approach to management'''. When complexity is high, an organization will rarely know whether achievement of a goal is realistic; it is often not possible to know whether a goal is achievable without learning more about the problem. It is likewise impossible, when dealing with complex problems, to know ''when'' a goal can be achieved because so much is unknown; only simple problems can be solved predictably enough to put their solution on a schedule. But most ambitious goals worth pursuing are not governed by simple cause-and-effect relationships; they require experimentation and analysis to uncover possible causes and alternative solutions before anyone can determine when the goal might be achieved. The point is that the SMART method may be useful in simple projects, but can be redundant and short-sighted when dealing with programmes or portfolios of high complexity.<ref> Bittner, K. (2021). ''When are SMART goals not-so-smart?''. https://www.scrum.org/resources/blog/when-are-smart-goals-not-so-smart. Retrieved February 28th, 2021. </ref>		# '''It encourages a simplistic and short-sighted approach to management'''. When complexity is high, an organization will rarely know whether achievement of a goal is realistic; it is often not possible to know whether a goal is achievable without learning more about the problem. It is likewise impossible, when dealing with complex problems, to know ''when'' a goal can be achieved because so much is unknown; only simple problems can be solved predictably enough to put their solution on a schedule. But most ambitious goals worth pursuing are not governed by simple cause-and-effect relationships; they require experimentation and analysis to uncover possible causes and alternative solutions before anyone can determine when the goal might be achieved. The point is that the SMART method may be useful in simple projects, but can be redundant and short-sighted when dealing with programmes or portfolios of high complexity.<ref> Bittner, K. (2021). ''When are SMART goals not-so-smart?''. https://www.scrum.org/resources/blog/when-are-smart-goals-not-so-smart. Retrieved February 28th, 2021. </ref>
	# '''It is not suitable to use when dealing with breakthrough innovations'''. So far, it has been clarified how effective the SMART method can be in setting goals when it comes to the ''improvement'' of a system. However, some argue that a fundamental ''change'' in a system cannot be obtained by using SMART goals, since these may result in innovations of only the most incremental kind, and not the kind that can be classified as breakthroughs. The argument is that the SMART method works against the dimensions of freedom, risk-taking and out-of-box ideas. Sharply defined goals may restrict our thinking. The need to meet near-term metrics drives easily-reached goals with short-term payoff and works against innovation, which has longer-range focus. Out-of-box ideas are eliminated at once if goals must be achievable. For these reasons, SMART should not be used if the goal is to create breakthrough innovations.<ref name="inno" />		# '''It is not suitable to use when dealing with breakthrough innovations'''. So far, it has been clarified how effective the SMART method can be in setting goals when it comes to the ''improvement'' of a system. However, some argue that a fundamental ''change'' in a system cannot be obtained by using SMART goals, since these may result in innovations of only the most incremental kind, and not the kind that can be classified as breakthroughs. The argument is that the SMART method works against the dimensions of freedom, risk-taking and out-of-box ideas. Sharply defined goals may restrict our thinking and work. The need to meet near-term metrics drives easily-reached goals with short-term payoff and works against innovation, which has longer-range focus. Out-of-box ideas are eliminated at once if goals must be achievable. For these reasons, SMART should not be used if the goal is to create breakthrough innovations.<ref name="inno" />

	== Alternatives (not finished) ==		== Alternatives (not finished) ==

S173741: /* Limitations */

2021-02-28T12:33:07Z

Limitations

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:33, 28 February 2021
Line 201:		Line 201:
	# '''The method does not take conflicting goals into account'''. While goals can sometimes be mutually reinforcing, they can also be in direct conflict with one another. The SMART method is often criticised for not taking into account conflicting goals such as organisational, environmental and ethical perspectives due to its discrete framework. For example, if the performance of a customer service agent is measured in terms of number of customers served, the agent may deliberately shorten conversations at the expense of customer satisfaction in order to meet the prescribed target. In SMART goals, there is no accounting of the cause-and-effect relationship between the goal and its wider impact like in, for example, the Balanced Scorecard. Highly specific goals may create a sense of tunnel vision and cause teams to focus on one area of a business while neglecting other aspects. Therefore, organizational objectives tied to a reward system can affect a company's culture, create workplace conflicts and promote unethical behavior. In addition to this, SMART does not have any evaluation step (for example, when a goal is no longer desirable or circumstances shift). For these reasons, some have suggested the model should be changed to '''SMARTER''' (E – Ethical / R – Re-evaluate).<ref name="lim" />		# '''The method does not take conflicting goals into account'''. While goals can sometimes be mutually reinforcing, they can also be in direct conflict with one another. The SMART method is often criticised for not taking into account conflicting goals such as organisational, environmental and ethical perspectives due to its discrete framework. For example, if the performance of a customer service agent is measured in terms of number of customers served, the agent may deliberately shorten conversations at the expense of customer satisfaction in order to meet the prescribed target. In SMART goals, there is no accounting of the cause-and-effect relationship between the goal and its wider impact like in, for example, the Balanced Scorecard. Highly specific goals may create a sense of tunnel vision and cause teams to focus on one area of a business while neglecting other aspects. Therefore, organizational objectives tied to a reward system can affect a company's culture, create workplace conflicts and promote unethical behavior. In addition to this, SMART does not have any evaluation step (for example, when a goal is no longer desirable or circumstances shift). For these reasons, some have suggested the model should be changed to '''SMARTER''' (E – Ethical / R – Re-evaluate).<ref name="lim" />
	# '''It encourages a simplistic and short-sighted approach to management'''. When complexity is high, an organization will rarely know whether achievement of a goal is realistic; it is often not possible to know whether a goal is achievable without learning more about the problem. It is likewise impossible, when dealing with complex problems, to know ''when'' a goal can be achieved because so much is unknown; only simple problems can be solved predictably enough to put their solution on a schedule. But most ambitious goals worth pursuing are not governed by simple cause-and-effect relationships; they require experimentation and analysis to uncover possible causes and alternative solutions before anyone can determine when the goal might be achieved. The point is that the SMART method may be useful in simple projects, but can be redundant and short-sighted when dealing with programmes or portfolios of high complexity.<ref> Bittner, K. (2021). ''When are SMART goals not-so-smart?''. https://www.scrum.org/resources/blog/when-are-smart-goals-not-so-smart. Retrieved February 28th, 2021. </ref>		# '''It encourages a simplistic and short-sighted approach to management'''. When complexity is high, an organization will rarely know whether achievement of a goal is realistic; it is often not possible to know whether a goal is achievable without learning more about the problem. It is likewise impossible, when dealing with complex problems, to know ''when'' a goal can be achieved because so much is unknown; only simple problems can be solved predictably enough to put their solution on a schedule. But most ambitious goals worth pursuing are not governed by simple cause-and-effect relationships; they require experimentation and analysis to uncover possible causes and alternative solutions before anyone can determine when the goal might be achieved. The point is that the SMART method may be useful in simple projects, but can be redundant and short-sighted when dealing with programmes or portfolios of high complexity.<ref> Bittner, K. (2021). ''When are SMART goals not-so-smart?''. https://www.scrum.org/resources/blog/when-are-smart-goals-not-so-smart. Retrieved February 28th, 2021. </ref>
	# '''It is not suitable to use when dealing with breakthrough innovations'''. So far, it has been clarified how effective the SMART method can be in setting goals when it comes to the ''improvement'' of a system. However, some argue that a fundamental ''change'' in a system cannot be obtained by using SMART goals, since these may result in innovations of only the most incremental kind, and not the kind that can be classified as breakthroughs. The argument is that the SMART method works against the dimensions of freedom, risk-taking and out-of-box ideas. Sharply defined goals may restrict our thinking. The need to meet near-term metrics drives easily-reached goals with short-term payoff and works against innovation, which has longer-range focus. ~~If goals must be achievable, then out~~-of-box ideas are eliminated at once. For these reasons, SMART should not be used if the goal is to create breakthrough innovations.<ref name="inno" />		# '''It is not suitable to use when dealing with breakthrough innovations'''. So far, it has been clarified how effective the SMART method can be in setting goals when it comes to the ''improvement'' of a system. However, some argue that a fundamental ''change'' in a system cannot be obtained by using SMART goals, since these may result in innovations of only the most incremental kind, and not the kind that can be classified as breakthroughs. The argument is that the SMART method works against the dimensions of freedom, risk-taking and out-of-box ideas. Sharply defined goals may restrict our thinking. The need to meet near-term metrics drives easily-reached goals with short-term payoff and works against innovation, which has longer-range focus. Out-of-box ideas are eliminated at once if goals must be achievable. For these reasons, SMART should not be used if the goal is to create breakthrough innovations.<ref name="inno" />

	== Alternatives (not finished) ==		== Alternatives (not finished) ==

S173741: /* Limitations */

2021-02-28T12:32:18Z

Limitations

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:32, 28 February 2021
Line 201:		Line 201:
	# '''The method does not take conflicting goals into account'''. While goals can sometimes be mutually reinforcing, they can also be in direct conflict with one another. The SMART method is often criticised for not taking into account conflicting goals such as organisational, environmental and ethical perspectives due to its discrete framework. For example, if the performance of a customer service agent is measured in terms of number of customers served, the agent may deliberately shorten conversations at the expense of customer satisfaction in order to meet the prescribed target. In SMART goals, there is no accounting of the cause-and-effect relationship between the goal and its wider impact like in, for example, the Balanced Scorecard. Highly specific goals may create a sense of tunnel vision and cause teams to focus on one area of a business while neglecting other aspects. Therefore, organizational objectives tied to a reward system can affect a company's culture, create workplace conflicts and promote unethical behavior. In addition to this, SMART does not have any evaluation step (for example, when a goal is no longer desirable or circumstances shift). For these reasons, some have suggested the model should be changed to '''SMARTER''' (E – Ethical / R – Re-evaluate).<ref name="lim" />		# '''The method does not take conflicting goals into account'''. While goals can sometimes be mutually reinforcing, they can also be in direct conflict with one another. The SMART method is often criticised for not taking into account conflicting goals such as organisational, environmental and ethical perspectives due to its discrete framework. For example, if the performance of a customer service agent is measured in terms of number of customers served, the agent may deliberately shorten conversations at the expense of customer satisfaction in order to meet the prescribed target. In SMART goals, there is no accounting of the cause-and-effect relationship between the goal and its wider impact like in, for example, the Balanced Scorecard. Highly specific goals may create a sense of tunnel vision and cause teams to focus on one area of a business while neglecting other aspects. Therefore, organizational objectives tied to a reward system can affect a company's culture, create workplace conflicts and promote unethical behavior. In addition to this, SMART does not have any evaluation step (for example, when a goal is no longer desirable or circumstances shift). For these reasons, some have suggested the model should be changed to '''SMARTER''' (E – Ethical / R – Re-evaluate).<ref name="lim" />
	# '''It encourages a simplistic and short-sighted approach to management'''. When complexity is high, an organization will rarely know whether achievement of a goal is realistic; it is often not possible to know whether a goal is achievable without learning more about the problem. It is likewise impossible, when dealing with complex problems, to know ''when'' a goal can be achieved because so much is unknown; only simple problems can be solved predictably enough to put their solution on a schedule. But most ambitious goals worth pursuing are not governed by simple cause-and-effect relationships; they require experimentation and analysis to uncover possible causes and alternative solutions before anyone can determine when the goal might be achieved. The point is that the SMART method may be useful in simple projects, but can be redundant and short-sighted when dealing with programmes or portfolios of high complexity.<ref> Bittner, K. (2021). ''When are SMART goals not-so-smart?''. https://www.scrum.org/resources/blog/when-are-smart-goals-not-so-smart. Retrieved February 28th, 2021. </ref>		# '''It encourages a simplistic and short-sighted approach to management'''. When complexity is high, an organization will rarely know whether achievement of a goal is realistic; it is often not possible to know whether a goal is achievable without learning more about the problem. It is likewise impossible, when dealing with complex problems, to know ''when'' a goal can be achieved because so much is unknown; only simple problems can be solved predictably enough to put their solution on a schedule. But most ambitious goals worth pursuing are not governed by simple cause-and-effect relationships; they require experimentation and analysis to uncover possible causes and alternative solutions before anyone can determine when the goal might be achieved. The point is that the SMART method may be useful in simple projects, but can be redundant and short-sighted when dealing with programmes or portfolios of high complexity.<ref> Bittner, K. (2021). ''When are SMART goals not-so-smart?''. https://www.scrum.org/resources/blog/when-are-smart-goals-not-so-smart. Retrieved February 28th, 2021. </ref>
	# '''It is not suitable to use when dealing with breakthrough innovations'''. So far, it has been clarified how effective the SMART method can be in setting goals when it comes to the ''improvement'' of a system. However, some argue that a fundamental ''change'' in a system cannot be obtained by using SMART goals, since these may result in innovations of only the most incremental kind, and not the kind that can be classified as breakthroughs. The argument is that the SMART method works against the dimensions of freedom, risk-taking and out-of-box ideas. Sharply defined goals may restrict our thinking. The need to meet near-term metrics drives easily-reached goals with short-term payoff and works against innovation, which has longer-range focus. If goals must be achievable, then out-of-box ideas are eliminated at once. For these reasons, SMART should not be used if the goal is to create breakthrough innovations. <ref name="inno" />		# '''It is not suitable to use when dealing with breakthrough innovations'''. So far, it has been clarified how effective the SMART method can be in setting goals when it comes to the ''improvement'' of a system. However, some argue that a fundamental ''change'' in a system cannot be obtained by using SMART goals, since these may result in innovations of only the most incremental kind, and not the kind that can be classified as breakthroughs. The argument is that the SMART method works against the dimensions of freedom, risk-taking and out-of-box ideas. Sharply defined goals may restrict our thinking. The need to meet near-term metrics drives easily-reached goals with short-term payoff and works against innovation, which has longer-range focus. If goals must be achievable, then out-of-box ideas are eliminated at once. For these reasons, SMART should not be used if the goal is to create breakthrough innovations.<ref name="inno" />

	== Alternatives (not finished) ==		== Alternatives (not finished) ==

S173741: /* Limitations */

2021-02-28T12:31:20Z

Limitations

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:31, 28 February 2021
Line 201:		Line 201:
	# '''The method does not take conflicting goals into account'''. While goals can sometimes be mutually reinforcing, they can also be in direct conflict with one another. The SMART method is often criticised for not taking into account conflicting goals such as organisational, environmental and ethical perspectives due to its discrete framework. For example, if the performance of a customer service agent is measured in terms of number of customers served, the agent may deliberately shorten conversations at the expense of customer satisfaction in order to meet the prescribed target. In SMART goals, there is no accounting of the cause-and-effect relationship between the goal and its wider impact like in, for example, the Balanced Scorecard. Highly specific goals may create a sense of tunnel vision and cause teams to focus on one area of a business while neglecting other aspects. Therefore, organizational objectives tied to a reward system can affect a company's culture, create workplace conflicts and promote unethical behavior. In addition to this, SMART does not have any evaluation step (for example, when a goal is no longer desirable or circumstances shift). For these reasons, some have suggested the model should be changed to '''SMARTER''' (E – Ethical / R – Re-evaluate).<ref name="lim" />		# '''The method does not take conflicting goals into account'''. While goals can sometimes be mutually reinforcing, they can also be in direct conflict with one another. The SMART method is often criticised for not taking into account conflicting goals such as organisational, environmental and ethical perspectives due to its discrete framework. For example, if the performance of a customer service agent is measured in terms of number of customers served, the agent may deliberately shorten conversations at the expense of customer satisfaction in order to meet the prescribed target. In SMART goals, there is no accounting of the cause-and-effect relationship between the goal and its wider impact like in, for example, the Balanced Scorecard. Highly specific goals may create a sense of tunnel vision and cause teams to focus on one area of a business while neglecting other aspects. Therefore, organizational objectives tied to a reward system can affect a company's culture, create workplace conflicts and promote unethical behavior. In addition to this, SMART does not have any evaluation step (for example, when a goal is no longer desirable or circumstances shift). For these reasons, some have suggested the model should be changed to '''SMARTER''' (E – Ethical / R – Re-evaluate).<ref name="lim" />
	# '''It encourages a simplistic and short-sighted approach to management'''. When complexity is high, an organization will rarely know whether achievement of a goal is realistic; it is often not possible to know whether a goal is achievable without learning more about the problem. It is likewise impossible, when dealing with complex problems, to know ''when'' a goal can be achieved because so much is unknown; only simple problems can be solved predictably enough to put their solution on a schedule. But most ambitious goals worth pursuing are not governed by simple cause-and-effect relationships; they require experimentation and analysis to uncover possible causes and alternative solutions before anyone can determine when the goal might be achieved. The point is that the SMART method may be useful in simple projects, but can be redundant and short-sighted when dealing with programmes or portfolios of high complexity.<ref> Bittner, K. (2021). ''When are SMART goals not-so-smart?''. https://www.scrum.org/resources/blog/when-are-smart-goals-not-so-smart. Retrieved February 28th, 2021. </ref>		# '''It encourages a simplistic and short-sighted approach to management'''. When complexity is high, an organization will rarely know whether achievement of a goal is realistic; it is often not possible to know whether a goal is achievable without learning more about the problem. It is likewise impossible, when dealing with complex problems, to know ''when'' a goal can be achieved because so much is unknown; only simple problems can be solved predictably enough to put their solution on a schedule. But most ambitious goals worth pursuing are not governed by simple cause-and-effect relationships; they require experimentation and analysis to uncover possible causes and alternative solutions before anyone can determine when the goal might be achieved. The point is that the SMART method may be useful in simple projects, but can be redundant and short-sighted when dealing with programmes or portfolios of high complexity.<ref> Bittner, K. (2021). ''When are SMART goals not-so-smart?''. https://www.scrum.org/resources/blog/when-are-smart-goals-not-so-smart. Retrieved February 28th, 2021. </ref>
	# '''It is not suitable to use when dealing with breakthrough innovations'''. So far, it has been clarified how effective the SMART method can be in setting goals when it comes to the ''improvement'' of a system. However, some argue that a fundamental ''change'' in a system cannot be obtained ~~on the merits of~~ SMART goals~~. Setting SMART goals for innovation~~ may result in innovations of only the most incremental kind, and not the kind that can be classified as breakthroughs. The argument is that the SMART method works against the dimensions of freedom, risk-taking and out-of-box ideas. Sharply defined goals may restrict our thinking. The need to meet near-term metrics drives easily-reached goals with short-term payoff and works against innovation, which has longer-range focus. If goals must be achievable, then out-of-box ideas are eliminated at once. For these reasons, SMART should not be used if the goal is to create breakthrough innovations. <ref name="inno" />		# '''It is not suitable to use when dealing with breakthrough innovations'''. So far, it has been clarified how effective the SMART method can be in setting goals when it comes to the ''improvement'' of a system. However, some argue that a fundamental ''change'' in a system cannot be obtained by using SMART goals, since these may result in innovations of only the most incremental kind, and not the kind that can be classified as breakthroughs. The argument is that the SMART method works against the dimensions of freedom, risk-taking and out-of-box ideas. Sharply defined goals may restrict our thinking. The need to meet near-term metrics drives easily-reached goals with short-term payoff and works against innovation, which has longer-range focus. If goals must be achievable, then out-of-box ideas are eliminated at once. For these reasons, SMART should not be used if the goal is to create breakthrough innovations. <ref name="inno" />

	== Alternatives (not finished) ==		== Alternatives (not finished) ==

S173741: /* Limitations */

2021-02-28T12:29:12Z

Limitations

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:29, 28 February 2021
Line 201:		Line 201:
	# '''The method does not take conflicting goals into account'''. While goals can sometimes be mutually reinforcing, they can also be in direct conflict with one another. The SMART method is often criticised for not taking into account conflicting goals such as organisational, environmental and ethical perspectives due to its discrete framework. For example, if the performance of a customer service agent is measured in terms of number of customers served, the agent may deliberately shorten conversations at the expense of customer satisfaction in order to meet the prescribed target. In SMART goals, there is no accounting of the cause-and-effect relationship between the goal and its wider impact like in, for example, the Balanced Scorecard. Highly specific goals may create a sense of tunnel vision and cause teams to focus on one area of a business while neglecting other aspects. Therefore, organizational objectives tied to a reward system can affect a company's culture, create workplace conflicts and promote unethical behavior. In addition to this, SMART does not have any evaluation step (for example, when a goal is no longer desirable or circumstances shift). For these reasons, some have suggested the model should be changed to '''SMARTER''' (E – Ethical / R – Re-evaluate).<ref name="lim" />		# '''The method does not take conflicting goals into account'''. While goals can sometimes be mutually reinforcing, they can also be in direct conflict with one another. The SMART method is often criticised for not taking into account conflicting goals such as organisational, environmental and ethical perspectives due to its discrete framework. For example, if the performance of a customer service agent is measured in terms of number of customers served, the agent may deliberately shorten conversations at the expense of customer satisfaction in order to meet the prescribed target. In SMART goals, there is no accounting of the cause-and-effect relationship between the goal and its wider impact like in, for example, the Balanced Scorecard. Highly specific goals may create a sense of tunnel vision and cause teams to focus on one area of a business while neglecting other aspects. Therefore, organizational objectives tied to a reward system can affect a company's culture, create workplace conflicts and promote unethical behavior. In addition to this, SMART does not have any evaluation step (for example, when a goal is no longer desirable or circumstances shift). For these reasons, some have suggested the model should be changed to '''SMARTER''' (E – Ethical / R – Re-evaluate).<ref name="lim" />
	# '''It encourages a simplistic and short-sighted approach to management'''. When complexity is high, an organization will rarely know whether achievement of a goal is realistic; it is often not possible to know whether a goal is achievable without learning more about the problem. It is likewise impossible, when dealing with complex problems, to know ''when'' a goal can be achieved because so much is unknown; only simple problems can be solved predictably enough to put their solution on a schedule. But most ambitious goals worth pursuing are not governed by simple cause-and-effect relationships; they require experimentation and analysis to uncover possible causes and alternative solutions before anyone can determine when the goal might be achieved. The point is that the SMART method may be useful in simple projects, but can be redundant and short-sighted when dealing with programmes or portfolios of high complexity.<ref> Bittner, K. (2021). ''When are SMART goals not-so-smart?''. https://www.scrum.org/resources/blog/when-are-smart-goals-not-so-smart. Retrieved February 28th, 2021. </ref>		# '''It encourages a simplistic and short-sighted approach to management'''. When complexity is high, an organization will rarely know whether achievement of a goal is realistic; it is often not possible to know whether a goal is achievable without learning more about the problem. It is likewise impossible, when dealing with complex problems, to know ''when'' a goal can be achieved because so much is unknown; only simple problems can be solved predictably enough to put their solution on a schedule. But most ambitious goals worth pursuing are not governed by simple cause-and-effect relationships; they require experimentation and analysis to uncover possible causes and alternative solutions before anyone can determine when the goal might be achieved. The point is that the SMART method may be useful in simple projects, but can be redundant and short-sighted when dealing with programmes or portfolios of high complexity.<ref> Bittner, K. (2021). ''When are SMART goals not-so-smart?''. https://www.scrum.org/resources/blog/when-are-smart-goals-not-so-smart. Retrieved February 28th, 2021. </ref>
	# '''It is not suitable to use when dealing with breakthrough innovations'''. So far, it has been clarified how effective the SMART method can be in setting goals when it comes to the improvement of a system. However, some argue that a fundamental change in a system cannot be obtained on the merits of SMART goals. Setting SMART goals for innovation may result in innovations of only the most incremental kind, and not the kind that can be classified as breakthroughs. The argument is that the SMART method works against the dimensions of freedom, risk-taking and out-of-box ideas. Sharply defined goals may restrict our thinking. The need to meet near-term metrics drives easily-reached goals with short-term payoff and works against innovation, which has longer-range focus. If goals must be achievable, then out-of-box ideas are eliminated at once. For these reasons, SMART should not be used if the goal is to create breakthrough innovations.		# '''It is not suitable to use when dealing with breakthrough innovations'''. So far, it has been clarified how effective the SMART method can be in setting goals when it comes to the ''improvement'' of a system. However, some argue that a fundamental ''change'' in a system cannot be obtained on the merits of SMART goals. Setting SMART goals for innovation may result in innovations of only the most incremental kind, and not the kind that can be classified as breakthroughs. The argument is that the SMART method works against the dimensions of freedom, risk-taking and out-of-box ideas. Sharply defined goals may restrict our thinking. The need to meet near-term metrics drives easily-reached goals with short-term payoff and works against innovation, which has longer-range focus. If goals must be achievable, then out-of-box ideas are eliminated at once. For these reasons, SMART should not be used if the goal is to create breakthrough innovations. <ref name="inno" />

	== Alternatives (not finished) ==		== Alternatives (not finished) ==