An occasional column for invited writers to raise issues that concern them
SMART objectives or daft objectives?
An increasingly common requirement from funding bodies is for bids to include SMART objectives. Funders like the concept of SMART, because it crystallises a project and gives the clarity needed for funding decisions. But Alan Sarsby believes it has a dark side: apply it in inappropriate circumstances and it will strangle creativity.
SMART is an acronym which represents an approach to stating objectives. It requires them to be Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Timely. The format looks deceptively simple. Being specific requires precision, not woolliness; being measurable means having systems in place to track progress and deliver a successful outcome; and being achievable is a demonstration that the objective can be met. Is your objective relevant to the funders' (and your own) purpose? And will it be delivered in time? SMART has become a popular project definition tool and arts organisations are increasingly being required to use the format. It can, however, be hard work.
The SMART way to do the wrong thing
If SMART is so good, why are arts organisations having a tough time using it? Look again at the make-up of the acronym: It very effectively covers the 'What', the 'How', and the 'When' of actions. It does not cover the 'Why'. The 'why' is provided by your organisation's strategy. Good quality strategic thinking is essential long before planning the detail. Your strategy might conclude that you cease delivering a particular artform despite having the capability for it. Missing the 'why' and going straight to SMART may turn out to be the way of correctly doing the wrong thing!
An operating plan will benefit from a SMART approach; but creating a strategy in SMART format is missing the point. SMART is not a tool for creating strategic visions and scenarios; those activities need other methods. Only after a strategic business purpose has answered the 'why' question should SMART be considered for detailed objectives.
Even apparently specific and precise objectives such as 'relocate into new premises by the end of 2003' are less SMART than they appear. It is specific, inherently measurable and clearly time-bound; but is it achievable? You have no idea. It depends on the state of the property market, the availability of buildings and many other issues. Real life has many complicating factors. Perhaps there is an available property that you rush into buying in order to meet the deadline imposed by the 'T'. Adhering to SMART has unwittingly led you to managing numbers rather than striving to achieve the underlying goal.
Right idea - left-brain
If not all objectives are well suited to SMART, when should it be used, and when avoided? If you step through the acronym it becomes clear that SMART projects have little tolerance for ambiguity. They need to be fully closed, painting-by-numbers projects that make substantial use of past knowledge and experience. Because of this, SMART projects are unlikely to deliver new knowledge or new artistic content - they don't work for experimental, creative or making-it-up-as-you-go-along activities. Consequently, basing funding decisions on SMART favours pre-definable, left-brain projects. Right-brain creative and innovative activities don't fit the SMART mould and are in danger of being strangled by lack of budget - as is the long-term sustainability of the arts. This leaves the arts organisation and its funders in a bit of a dilemma.
Survival guide
SMART is simultaneously a valuable and dangerous tool, so how do you survive its use?
Here are some tips:
- Do use SMART. It¡¦s a good management tool but only for precise operational activities and well-defined projects.
- Place the right bid with the right funder. Direct the specific, low-creativity projects to those who need SMART for decision-making. They¡¦ll be happy and you get the money. Find other funders for visionary activities.
- Take your funder on a journey of discovery. Help them to understand what SMART can be applied to, and more importantly, what it can¡¦t.
- If the funder insists on SMART for everything, they are probably not smart enough to realise its limitations. Prepare a special version of the business plan, ignore the rigour but use the headings to give your proposals a SMART veneer.
- Funders are real people. Their rewards, and more importantly their punishments, can make them risk averse. You might not know your project is risky (how does a fish know it's wet?), so present high-risk activities in a very low-risk way.
- If you have a funder that, frankly, doesn't realise the damage they are doing by over-zealous and inappropriate application of SMART, develop a strategy to dump them or confine their influence.
- Don't use SMART for strategy, experimental, or foggy projects.
And for the funders...
SMART is not a one-size-fits-all management method. Look for, and encourage, other techniques that fit the situation.
Is a higher authority imposing your use of SMART? Fight back. Display some courage and re-use the suggestions above to manage your own funders.
Remember that arts people are real people too. Their main interest is in the arts, and locking them into a single business technique may create a false sense of security that may be bitterly terminated by creative or business failure.
Are SMART objectives a daft idea for the arts? The case in favour rests on the rigours of project management, right-first-time, no failures, and reflected glory following delivery. However, the case against is for those creative activities where the outcome is variable or unknown. SMART isn't just the wrong tool, it's dangerous, and may leave the arts in a very dull state.
Alan Sarsby is an independent consultant with experience in change leadership, performance management systems and business coaching
e: alan@alansarsby.com. A fuller version of this article can be found at http://www.alansarsby.com