Different models emphasize different factors. This produces different results. OPDCA has a different emphasis than PDCA, which is different than PDSA, which is different than DMAIC and different than OODA. IDEA places a heavier emphasis on identification of the problem, implying there is an unknown, dynamic situation unfolding. This contrasts with PDCA which, in comparison to IDEA, assumes a more static environment, a more known or stable goal. This is neither good or bad, simply different. And models that are successful in one domain, such as PDCA in the manufacturing industry, are not necessarily transferable to other domains. In the education industry, for instance, the reiterative ADDIE model has proven to be more useful than PDCA. The bottom line, if PDCA works for the goals you are trying to achieve, great. IDEA is just one alternative out of dozens available.

Thanks.

There are different versions of the SMART model. Some versions use “attainable” or “achievable” while others substitute “realistic” for the R. The benefits of using any particular model is largely driven by how you want to frame your goals. The model presented intentionally avoids attainable. This encourages setting goals that are challenging but may not necessarily be attainable. Instead we focus on what actions we can take to progress towards a goal, regardless of the ultimate outcome. This is how a goal we once believed was unattainable, e.g., running a mile in under 4-minutes, was in fact attained.

A place to start… www.decisionskills.com/uploads/5/1/6/0/5160560/klein_2008.pdf

Thanks!

Thanks!

Glad it was helpful!

You're welcome!

In 1981 the “a” was for assignable. George Doran offered assignable for managers in the original SMART model. Achievable is a common version, but there is no standard. Use what works for you. Some versions also add -er for SMARTER. Actionable helps to focus on practical steps to move towards the goal. Whether or not a goal is achievable is often unknown, especially if we are setting challenging goals.

Thanks.

Thank you.

You're welcome!

Keep in mind there is not a single version of SMART. In the original, 1980’s version of SMART, the “a” was for assignable. There are versions with “a” as achievable and versions with “r” for realistic. There are also versions that are SMARTER. In the version presented here the “a” is presented as actionable for a very good reason. Many goals we may wish to pursue do not need to be achievable. We can take actions, we can develop an action plan that takes us towards a goal, but this does not signify a goal is known to be achievable. For example, running under a 4-minute mile was considered unachievable, yet it was actionable. It was unknown if sailing around the world in a wooden ship was achievable, but it was actionable. Today we don’t know if colonizing another planet is actually achievable or realistic. However, we can take actions towards discovering if it is achievable. We don’t know if time travel is achievable, but to this day some people take actions to discover this possibility. If you wish to use “a” for achievable, great. Or you might consider SMAART, where you include in your personal goals not only actions but whether or not you believe the goal is achievable. There is no established rule that SMART is limited to only a single version. Use whatever model works best for you.

Thanks.

You're welcome!

Glad it was helpful!

It can be general. Our observations may not allow us to determine a specific goal or precise destination. It can be unclear or foggy. As we navigate through the fog we continue to observe, we learn, we gain more information, and this may require that we reorient. It is important to understand that our ability to observe can become better or worse as conditions change. We may have a clear goal in one moment and then find ourselves in the dark and disoriented. It is an ongoing process.