SMART Strategy, Goals, and Objectives
Google Gemini Prompt
What is a SMART Goal? What is the difference between a strategy, goal, and objective?
Google Gemini Response
A SMART goal is a framework used to help guide goal setting and increase the likelihood of success. It ensures that objectives are clear, reachable, and verifiable.
The acronym stands for:
S – Specific
Your goal should be clear and well-defined. Instead of a vague idea, focus on what exactly needs to be accomplished.
Ask: What do I want to accomplish? Why is this goal important? Who is involved?
M – Measurable
A goal needs criteria for measuring progress. Without a way to track your success, it’s hard to stay motivated or know when you’ve reached the finish line.
Ask: How much? How many? How will I know when it is accomplished?
A – Achievable
The goal should be realistic and attainable. It can be challenging, but it must remain within the realm of possibility based on your available resources and constraints.
Ask: How can I accomplish this goal? How realistic is the goal, based on other constraints?
R – Relevant
This ensures that the goal matters to you and aligns with other relevant objectives. It should drive you forward in the direction you actually want to go.
Ask: Does this seem worthwhile? Is this the right time? Does this match our other efforts/needs?
T – Time-bound
Every goal needs a target date or a deadline. This prevents everyday tasks from taking priority over your longer-term goals and creates a sense of urgency.
Ask: When? What can I do six months from now? What can I do today?
While these terms [strategy, goals, and objectives] are often used interchangeably, they represent different layers of planning. Think of them as a hierarchy that moves from the "Where" to the "How" and finally to the "What."
1. Goal (The "Where")
A goal is a broad, high-level statement of what you want to achieve in the long term. It provides the destination and the overall vision. Goals are typically qualitative rather than quantitative.
Focus: Long-term vision and purpose.
Example: "To become the leading provider of cloud-based infrastructure services for local governments."
2. Strategy (The "How")
The strategy is the high-level approach or path you will take to reach your goal. It isn’t a list of tasks, but rather the overarching logic used to gain an advantage or overcome a challenge.
Focus: Logic, resource allocation, and direction.
Example: "Form strategic partnerships with state agencies to streamline procurement and build trust within public sector networks."
3. Objective (The "What")
Objectives are the specific, measurable milestones that must be met to execute the strategy. This is where the SMART framework is most commonly applied. Objectives are tactical and time-bound.
Focus: Concrete actions and measurable results.
Example: "Onboard three new municipal clients in the Richmond area by the end of Q4."
While these terms are often used interchangeably, they represent different layers of planning. Think of them as a hierarchy that moves from the "Where" to the "How" and finally to the "What."
Discussion
SMART strategy, goals, and objectives are the neurology of the transformation work and keeps people and teams aligned, focused, and accomplishment oriented. A common problem among troubled technology teams and organizations is a lack of clarity, focus, and prioritization. People have so much work going on that everyone is overwhelmed and work is not getting accomplished. They are very busy doing busy work (due to a lack of prioritization so everything and nothing is a priority) and don’t have a mechanism to allocate resources and ensure that tasks are completed before new tasks are accepted. Every time that teams switch tasks, there is an efficiency loss as they stop what they are currently working on and switch to another task and eventually have to switch back to the original task. When this happens with many tasks, the efficiency loss becomes massive. More time can be spent on task switching than on productive work. When this happens throughout the organization, then the lack of results and progress is noticed.
The concept of goal setting and SMART goals (described by Gemini) is not new. I learned about goal setting theory in the 80s and it was not new then either (example, Peter Drucker’s Management by Objectives in the 50s). The researchers found that when goals are set and people (regardless of profession) are held accountable to those goals, then the goals tend get met. The concept of SMART goals arrived in the 80s and provided guidance on how to create better goals. Today, SMART goals are commonly used for staff performance plans at the individual level. Many supervisors and managers have been trained on how to apply SMART goals for their staff. Applying the SMART concept ensures that goals are fully clarified with both the goal setter and the goal receiver fully aligned.
When Governor Glenn Youngkin was elected and sworn in as the 74th Governor of Virginia, he came with a plan and a method. Called the Day One Plan, the Plan broadly outlined nine strategic goals where he wanted state government to fundamentally improve. As the CIO for the Virginia IT Agency (VITA), my organization (and several others under the Secretary of Administration) aligned with the Making Government Work Better strategic goal. The strategic goal gave me and VITA clarity on what we needed to do and not do. There were many performance problems at VITA, and we (leadership and staff) knew that we were working in a target rich environment. Our focus at VITA was to address those performance problems that were dragging the performance on all of the agencies that we served.
The method that Governor Youngkin brought was an organizational accountability system using OKRs (objectives and key results) and regular administrative reviews of progress (weekly progress reports and monthly/quarterly management reviews). Like SMART goals, OKRs are not new and were pioneered by Intel in the 70s. What was new was the application of annual OKRs and systematic administrative reviews in state government. This practice of OKRs and administrative reviews created a system of interlocking OKRs that flowed up and down the organization. As CIO and with the input of the chiefs (CxOs) on my leadership team, I crafted OKRs at the agency level. I flowed them up to my Secretary of Administration who selected key VITA OKRs for her secretariat OKRs (which then flowed up to the Governor). I flowed them down to my Chiefs who then created (with input from their directors), OKRs within each of their VITA business units. Some directors created OKRs for their managers and supervisors. We viewed progress on our OKRs internally and also as part of our upline leadership administrative reviews.
At VITA, the time horizon for goals was four years and the time span for objectives (OKRs) was one year. The goals spanned the Governor’s term. In Virginia, a Governor can only serve one term so the time span for goals was set to conclude with the Governor’s term plus one extra year to bridge to the next administration. The annual objectives were designed to advance and progress against the goals. The strategy was the multi-year methods and practices that we would use to progress the goals. For example, we had a goal to Transform the Virginian Experience with a strategy to expand Commonwealth connectivity and broadband access. Our annual OKR was to modernize the network at state offices (with the key result being the number of upgraded sites and amount of increased bandwidth capacity) throughout the Commonwealth so that state workers could deliver digital services to serve citizens.
The goals and objectives addressed a range of problems and opportunities. Each goal was multi-year and improvement focused. The objectives were more tactical and included efforts to address the STB issues (like improving the network), building capacity and systems (like launching cloud data centers), completing projects, and improving core functions (like financial process improvement).