I didn’t say it was simpler. But it is structured. They are actual questions that turn into plans. Just writing the goal isn’t enough, whether it’s SMART or MT. There is still more work to do. Those are the questions you need to start asking to go beyond just a goal.

And if you use successfully SMART goals, then that’s fine, as I’ve said many times now. The thing is, 95% of the people I test that say they use SMART goals actually do not. Many don’t remember actually what they stand for. I don’t try to remember. That’s why I use a template.

And I think R has no argument. If you need an acronym to remember to write a Relevant goal, then goals aren’t going to save you.

I checked out your template and I was disappointed. I’m not sure how your goal scheme is any simpler than SMART, and SMART has the benefit of being easy to remember.

Additionally, I don’t think you should undervalue the S. Being specific is good advice for everyone, and not just in New Year’s resolutions. We all have to plan at work and at home. I teach science writing and I always have to remind students to be specific. As writers (those who post, who comment, blog, etc.) we all benefit from being specific. How many times do we see comments reminding us that the post wasn’t quite clear? Why not have a reminder to be specific?

Anyway. A and R may also have their arguments, but I think I have a good enough argument with S that M and T are not the complete process.

I have my fitness goals for the year, but how much I run or exercise this year is not my final destination. My fitness relates to 3 core values: My performance at work and other places where I serve, family relationships in the present (being active as a family, keeping up with the kids, etc.), and most importantly my family relationships in the future (excercise being the most important factor I can choose to increase the chance of a long life and fewer health expenditures.)

Thanks

As for decision to take half of the fund vs. income surpluses, I opted for the former because it affords me greater flexibility. Our emergency fund can cover a year of expenses, which means half will cover six. So in the event of a loss, I have six months of coverage and as the months pass I can boost that back up to six. Given that time frame, I thought I had enough of a cushion to take half and start investing today. If I waited to use surpluses, I’d have to wait a little bit longer to start investing because of sales commissions.

Hopefully that explanation was a little better?

SANFORD

Am I missing something? Why would you spend your emergency fund after working so hard to build it up? You go on to further state that, “We will invest half of the fund over the next six months in individual stocks and then replenish the emergency fund with income as the months pass.”

This almost seems like a get rich quickly scheme. Why would you not advocate preserving your emergency fund and using current income surpluses to invest in the stock market?

I must be missing something.

-Matt