>>41539790
Oh, that is absolute dogshit, they use SMART at the project level. I would consider 4 hours of focused work too much for a single SMART goal, because that is the entire budget of concentrated work that there is in a day. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, management frequently hinges on creating an aesthetic of productivity. Disgusting, thank you for clarifying though!
>I could frame a batch cooking "OPORD" as SMART
Actually, pretty much. The scope I have in mind is very different. SMART is there to sanity check goals set for *part of a day*. A single task. Example, "cleaning the house" is not. The scope is way too broad, it is a fundamentally unfinishable task if we are honest, it's pure OCD fodder.
"I will clean one square meter of floor in my room at 2pm today." Specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, and time-bound. A SMART goal should never be ambitious. A great goal does not take long. I would also advise against trying to actually follow the template religiously. It is more a debugging tool. Never aim to "clean the kitchen" when you can "do the dishes, today, 6pm". I find that it is much better to have many small tasks with a well defined limited scope to work with.
>my experience with relationships are not that good.
I'm sorry to hear, Anon. It sucks cause it's such a function of meeting people you can trust, which to some extent hinges on luck..