In 2018, MIT made a bold statement: F.A.S.T. goals surpass S.M.A.R.T. goals. This wasn’t an opinion but a fact.
In 2018, MIT made a bold statement: F.A.S.T. goals surpass S.M.A.R.T. goals. This wasn’t an opinion but a fact.
Specific
Measurable
Attainable
Relevant/Realistic
Time-Bound
This framework was introduced by George Doran¹ in 1981. Back in 1954, Peter Drucker, a giant in the management field, developed “Management by Objectives”. Fast forward to 2018, and MIT Sloan School of Management professor Don Sull, along with his brother Charlie Sull, distilled these principles into the F.A.S.T.² goal system:
Frequently discussed
Ambitious
Specific
Transparent
S.M.A.R.T. Goals vs. F.A.S.T. Goals
Where Does S.M.A.R.T. Struggle?
After 25 years of leading goal-setting workshops using the S.M.A.R.T. method, I’ve noticed a recurring challenge: balancing ambition with practicality. Encouraging participants to dream big while ensuring their goals remain “Attainable” and “Relevant/Realistic” is a delicate task. Another difficulty lies in the “Measurable” component. While identifying metrics is relatively simple, consistently tracking progress requires forming new habits—a challenge for many. Developing and maintaining these habits demands motivation, discipline, and perseverance, which are often lacking for certain goals. In corporate environments, S.M.A.R.T. lacks a built-in system for regular goal review. As a result, goals are often set and then forgotten.
Where Does F.A.S.T. Struggle?
The “Frequently Discussed” element of F.A.S.T. addresses S.M.A.R.T.’s measurement challenge, but its success depends on corporate culture. Regular goal discussions must become a standard part of meetings, and a supportive, non-toxic environment is essential for this approach to thrive. “Transparent” is another appealing feature, fostering community support by making goals and obstacles visible. However, sharing personal goals can feel as vulnerable as revealing a diary. While overcoming this fear is possible, many people are hesitant, which can result in setting less ambitious goals.
Where Does S.M.A.R.T. Excel?
S.M.A.R.T. remains the go-to framework for goal setting. Despite F.A.S.T.’s recent rise in popularity, replacing a system with a 44-year track record is no small feat. Once ingrained, habits become second nature, making it challenging to shift to a new method. S.M.A.R.T. excels at crafting well-defined goals. By following its structured approach, individuals can create clear, actionable objectives. In contrast, F.A.S.T. prioritizes the process over goal definition.
Where Does F.A.S.T. Excel?
F.A.S.T. provides a structured process for goal achievement. While I offer a workshop to help with S.M.A.R.T. goal setting, F.A.S.T. naturally integrates “Frequently Discussed” and “Transparent” elements. The “Ambitious” component pushes individuals beyond their perceived limits. In my experience, we often underestimate our capabilities, and F.A.S.T. encourages aiming higher. Additionally, the “Frequently Discussed” aspect reinforces habit formation, keeping goals top of mind and increasing the likelihood of success.
Which One Wins?
In my view, a hybrid approach works best. Use S.M.A.R.T. to set goals, but replace “Achievable” with “Ambitious.” For shared or corporate goals, F.A.S.T. is ideal—provided the workplace culture supports transparency and frequent discussions without judgment. For personal goals, start with S.M.A.R.T., then leverage F.A.S.T. by sharing and discussing goals with relevant people to enhance accountability and success.