SMART Criteria¶
A versioned five-prompt method for reviewing how a proposed goal or objective specifies its target, progress, feasibility or responsibility, fit, and timing.
Core Idea¶
SMART criteria is a five-prompt method for reviewing the wording of a proposed goal or objective.[1][2] A reviewer declares what each letter means, compares the draft objective with those questions, and identifies what is present, missing, or worth revising.[1][2] The review does not prove that the goal will be achieved or require every proposed objective to pass all five prompts.[1]
The acronym has documented variants. Doran's 1981 formulation is Specific, Measurable, Assignable, Realistic, Time-related.[1] A later SAMHSA guide uses Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound.[2] A and R change the questions, so a sound review names its version rather than silently mixing them.
Scope of Application¶
Doran applies the method to management objectives; SAMHSA applies it to objectives for a public-health grant.[1][2] Both begin with an intended outcome stated in words and end with a more informed judgment about those words. A new setting may use the method, but the evaluator must specify the intended expansion and local purpose. A mnemonic without a draft objective is a rubric description, not an applied review.
Clarity¶
The first question is which SMART? Under Doran, A asks about an assignee and R about realism.[1] Under SAMHSA, A asks whether the aim is achievable and R whether it serves the grant purpose.[2] These prompts should not be treated as interchangeable. In Doran's printed inventory objective, a deadline and resource limits are stated but an assignee is not.[1] That is a useful finding from the method, not a reason to deny that the example is a SMART review.[1]
Manages Complexity¶
The five prompts organize a broad writing problem into separate questions about target, indicator, the chosen A and R concerns, and time. They make gaps easier to discuss, but do not replace judgment about the work itself. Doran warns that forcing quantification on some objectives can be misleading.[1] A numeric target might be clear yet irrelevant or infeasible, and a deadline alone cannot make a goal achievable.
Abstract Reasoning¶
Read the proposed objective against one declared version, then ask what its text actually provides. Doran's inventory example names an inventory system, a $1 million cost-reduction target, a December 31 deadline, and initial limits of 200 hours and $15,000.[1] Those details make several questions inspectable; the statement still does not name who is responsible, and the resource bounds do not prove feasibility.[1] The conclusion is an action-guiding request for clarification and a feasibility check, not a five-box score that Doran printed.
Knowledge Transfer¶
The transferable operation is to inspect a bounded objective against a declared set of prompts and use the result to revise or qualify it. Doran's management case and SAMHSA's grant case both fit that operation, but their A/R words and institutional purposes differ.[1][2] The broader object–criterion–judgment pattern belongs to the live Evaluation Prime; an evaluation with another rubric is not thereby a SMART review.
Examples¶
Doran's inventory objective. Implement an inventory system by December 31 to reduce inventory costs by $1 million, with initial work bounded by 200 hours and $15,000.[1] The objective is that statement; the version is Doran's; Specific names the system and target, Measurable supplies the cost figure, Assignable is unstated, Realistic is a question prompted by the resource limits rather than a proven result, and Time-related has the deadline.[1] The readout is to name responsibility and test feasibility.
SAMHSA's collaboration objective. The guide refines “collaborate with 11 Tribal entities” into a project-director objective to obtain and submit signed agreements spelling out collaboration with 11 youth-serving entities by August 31, 2017.[2] The objective is the revised statement; the version is SAMHSA's; Specific identifies the director and agreements, Measurable counts 11 agreements, Achievable is supported by relationships and resources, Relevant links the agreements to grant services, and Time-bound supplies the date.[2] The readout is a more detailed objective, not evidence that the agreements were later secured.
Relationships to Other Abstractions¶
Current abstraction SMART Criteria Domain-specific
Parents (1) — outgoing typed relations
-
SMART Criteria is a kind of Evaluation Prime
Every applied SMART review is an Evaluation using a declared five-prompt objective-writing criterion frame.
Hierarchy path (1) — routes to 1 parentless root
- SMART Criteria → is a kind of Evaluation → presupposes Comparison
Neighborhood in Abstraction Space¶
SMART Criteria sits in a sparse region of the domain-specific corpus (97th percentile for distinctiveness): few abstractions share its structure, so a faithful description tends to retrieve it precisely.
Family — Unclustered & Miscellaneous (2769 abstractions)
Nearest neighbors
- Systematic Review — 0.76
- Digression — 0.76
- Optimality criterion — 0.75
- Naturalistic Fallacy — 0.75
- Local convergence — 0.75
Computed from structural-signature embeddings · 2026-10-25
Not to Be Confused With¶
A written-goals study by Matthews compares writing and accountability conditions; it does not isolate SMART criteria and cannot establish a SMART-specific success rate.[3] A complete plan links objectives to actions, which this wording check alone does not do. The structured edge to Evaluation is strict subsumption of an applied SMART review: it evaluates a draft objective under a declared criterion frame and returns a judgment or revision. Doran's incomplete example still instantiates the review procedure because exposing a gap is one of the procedure's results.[1]
References¶
[1] George T. Doran, “There's a S.M.A.R.T. Way to Write Management's Goals and Objectives,” Management Review 70, no. 11 (November 1981), 35–36; original two-page article reproduction, https://www.decisionskills.com/uploads/5/1/6/0/5160560/doran_1981_s.m.a.r.t-way-management-review.pdf. registry ↩a ↩b ↩c ↩d ↩e ↩f ↩g ↩h ↩i ↩j ↩k ↩l ↩m ↩n ↩o
[2] SAMHSA Native Connections, Setting Goals and Developing Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound Objectives, government-hosted guide, pp. 1–5, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GOVPUB-HE20_400-PURL-gpo254201/pdf/GOVPUB-HE20_400-PURL-gpo254201.pdf. The guide's tips also call A “Attainable”; its title and main expansion use “Achievable.” registry ↩a ↩b ↩c ↩d ↩e ↩f ↩g ↩h
[3] Gail Matthews, Goals Research Summary, Dominican University, https://www.dominican.edu/sites/default/files/2020-02/gailmatthews-harvard-goals-researchsummary.pdf. The study compares written goals and accountability conditions; it does not isolate SMART criteria. registry ↩