Is your project SMART or STUPID?
Any project or plan needs a bit of preparation, a bit of structure to ensure that
everyone and everything is aligned.
SMART goals are often discussed, usually positively, occasionally less so. It usually
comes down to their interpretation. For starters, the nemonic isn’t fixed – many
interpretations feature duplication and have their own built in limitations.
Specific: What are you looking to achieve? If this isn’t clearly defined then the hard
work could be all wasted. Without a specific goal it is too easy to be distracted along
the way. “Conquer space” is vague, “Put a man on the moon” is specific. Put a man on
the moon and bring them back alive might be better still.
Measurable: How will you be able to gauge completion and success? Will it be
enough to place a footprint on lunar surface or will it need a photograph of someone
holding a flag against a black and starry background. In most businesses, this is more
likely to be a numerical target: output to 25giga widgets
Achievable: The first of the contentious points. What defines achievable? Why is it
important? If it is too hard will people be demoralised from the start? The risk here is
that you use past performance as a guide to what is achievable – “We’ve done 22giga
widgets so 25 is achievable.”
The problem is that is very limiting. Putting a man on the moon wasn’t something
that had been done before – not even close. It wasn’t the previous goal with a 10%
increment. https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/mar/27/think-big-tasks-
ambitions-creativity-smarter-faster-better-charles-duhigg provides an example of
when a stretch goal is needed to bring in new thinking.
What both of those projects, rockets and trains, demonstrate is a willingness to take
bold new steps and that the collective investment was su!cient in terms of people
and resources.
Relevant: Where does this goal sit in the scope of your overall mission? Putting a
man on the moon was a huge scientific and explorational achievement. It was also
highly political at the time, potentially the only reason it got the funding necessary
and why we haven’t put a foot on the moon since 1972.
While many lists put realistic here that seems to close to achievable to be
worthwhile.
Timebound: When would this need to happen? “I’ll paint the shed” might be specific
but if it is followed with “when I get around to it” it isn’t likely to happen in this
lifetime. Putting times & dates in place doesn’t automatically mean that is when the
project will be completed – breaking it up in to chucks with an option to review can
increase the success rate as it enables changes mid project to be accounted for.
Third party suppliers or even the weather can add delays.
In 1961 “end of the decade” was good enough for JFK. End of the quarter might be
more appropriate for your next project.
So how do you avoid being STUPID?
Spontaneous: Ah, that knee jerk reaction to something that doesn’t get thought out
properly. Don’t let people convince you that this is a good thing by calling it Agile.
Even Agile methods have a clear structure.
Traumatic: If you don’t ensure your team are happy with the project you are likely to
find you are doing this alone.
Unplanned: Even if the next step is to plan this properly it is a plan. Fail to plan, plan to
fail.
Peacemeal: Don’t rush into something without considering what will happen next.
There may be discovery along the way, especially so with new goals but it should still
form part of a bigger plan or mission.
Insular: Otherwise known as working in silos. Where one team makes great changes
without considering the e"ect on others. Or where huge amounts of work are
duplicated, probably with a few tiny details that make merging the projects
impossible.
Doomed: The result of STUPID goals.