Going beyond SMART and MOSCOW to achieve clear ‘well-formed’ project outcomes webinar, 24 June 2026.pdf

Going beyond SMART and MOSCOW to achieve clear ‘well-formed’ project outcomes webinar, 24 June 2026.pdf

• 1.
  Going beyond SMARTand MoSCoW to achieve clear ‘well-formed’ project outcomes that actually deliver. APM People Interest Network Hosted by Tim Lyons and Sophie Vyse 24 June 2026
• 2.
  TODAY'S SESSION What we’llcover 01 Why Outcomes Still Fail The persistent problem, even with commonly-used frameworks 02 Outputs vs Outcomes vs Goals Getting the language right 03 Frameworks Compared SMART · MoSCoW · OKRs · WFO: what each does (and doesn't) do 04 The 8 WFO Conditions A practical test for every project outcome 05 WFO in Modern Contexts Agile experiments, AI change projects, OKR quality checks 06 Your WFO Toolkit Build WFO conditions into your project docs; Re-check conditions APM People Interest Network | Well-Formed Outcomes | June 2026 2
• 3.
  P O LL Let's Start With You Q1: How are project outcomes typically defined in your organisation? SMART goals Objectives/Key Results [OKRs] MoSCoW Informally / no standard framework Q2: How often do technically 'complete' projects still feel like they did not achieve the expected outcome? Rarely Sometimes (1 in 5) Often (1 in 3) Most of the time APM People Interest Network | Well-Formed Outcomes | June 2026 3
• 4.
  DEFINITIONS Getting the LanguageRight OUTPUT The tangible or intangible thing delivered by a project. Used interchangeably with Deliverable or Product. [APM BoK 8th Ed.] e.g. New hospital wing is commissioned OUTCOME The changed circumstances or behaviour resulting from the use of an Output. Leads to the realisation of Benefits. [APM BoK 8th Ed.] e.g. Customers resolve routine queries without needing agent assistance GOAL Something that delivers value or benefit — a long-term strategic outcome. Measurable objectives are the tactical milestones that get you there. [PMI PMBOK 8th Ed.] e.g. Become the most trusted digital service in our sector by 2027 APM People Interest Network | Well-Formed Outcomes | June 2026 5
• 5.
  W E LL - F O R M E D O U T C O M E S Achieving outcomes – some context 33 - 37% of projects fail due to unclear goals (PMI / Standish Group) 70% of strategic transformations fall short (McKinsey/Boston Consulting Group / Harvard Business review)
• 6.
  THE PROBLEM Why OutcomesStill Fail — Even With Good Frameworks 33–37% of project failures attributed to unclear goals (PMI / Standish Group) 67% of companies fail in the implementation phase (HBR) 70% of strategic transformations fall short (McKinsey) Goals are often stated as negatives "Reduce complaints" — the brain can't navigate toward an absence. Teams chase metrics, not meaning. Nobody really owns the outcome Cascaded OKRs and imposed SMART goals create compliance, not commitment. Ownership is assumed, never established. Ecology is ignored The unintended consequences — on other teams, on culture, on skills — aren't in the risk register. They show up at go-live. "Done" may not be defined observably Acceptance criteria describe features, not the human experience of a problem being solved. APM People Interest Network | Well-Formed Outcomes | June 2026 4
• 7.
  Comparing frameworks usedto define and deliver goals, deliverables and outcomes
• 8.
  OUTCOME FRAMEWORKS MoSCoW selectionprocess - developed at Oracle in 1994. MUST HAVE Without this, the requirement is undeliverable SHOULD HAVE COULD HAVE NOT a system for helping to deliver anything – it is a simple way of SELECTING required deliverables APM People Interest Network | Well-Formed Outcomes | June 2026 5 WON’T HAVE Ideally to be delivered (usually for quality reasons) May be deleted from the requirement if necessary Overtly stated as not being delivered
• 9.
  OUTCOME FRAMEWORKS SMART goals– Origin: Peter Drucker (Management by objectives), acronym later defined by George T. Doran. Specific Must be well-defined, clear, and unambiguous Measurable Achievable Originally conceived for Goals or Outcomes, but often applied to Outputs / Deliverables APM People Interest Network | Well-Formed Outcomes | June 2026 5 Relevant Must include criteria for measuring progress and completion Should be realistic and attainable [or Assignable - must clarify who will do each part] Supports the overall project outcome(s) Time-bound Can be planned and has a clear start and finish
• 10.
  OUTCOME FRAMEWORKS Objectives andKey Results (OKRs) – Developed at Intel in 1999 by Andy Grove and John Doerr. Objective What is to be achieved – must be significant, concrete, action oriented, and (ideally) inspirational Key Result #1 Key Result #2 Used by Intel, Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Apple, Samsung, Dell, Uber and many others APM People Interest Network | Well-Formed Outcomes | June 2026 5 Key Result #n How you will achieve the Objective - specific, time-bound, aggressive and realistic. Must be measurable and verifiable Something else that delivers the Objective, as above Etc. etc.– as many KRs as are needed
• 11.
  A Well-Formed Outcome— The 8 Conditions Every project outcome should pass all 8 tests before you baseline. 1 POSITIVE Stated as what you DO want 2 OWNED Desired & driven by the owner 3 CONTROLLED Within your power to deliver 4 SPECIFIC Described clearly & unambiguously 5 EVIDENCED You'll know when you've got it 6 RESOURCED People, time, budget confirmed 7 SIZED Not too big, not too small 8 ECOLOGICAL Won't harm what matters elsewhere APM People Interest Network | Well-Formed Outcomes | June 2026 7
• 12.
  CONDITION 1 &2 1 POSITIVE State what you DO want — not what you want to stop, reduce or avoid. Our brains navigate toward destinations, not away from problems. Away- from goals create ambiguity about what 'done' looks like. THE TEST: "Remove the negative words. Can you describe what will be happening instead?" Ban the sales of new petrol or diesel cars from 2035 Create the market conditions and infrastructure so everyone wants EV’s from 2035 PM TIP Scan your project objectives for: reduce, avoid, prevent, stop, less, fewer, not. Each one needs reframing. 2 OWNED The people delivering the outcome must want it, believe in it, and feel genuine ownership. Cascaded OKRs and top-down SMART goals create compliance — not commitment. Imposed goals are a delivery risk. THE TEST: "Can the owner say 'I want this’ - not just 'I've been told to deliver this'?" Sales team handed a revenue target with no involvement in setting it Sales leads co-created the target and can articulate why it matters to them PM TIP Before baselineing, ask: 'Were the people delivering this involved in defining it?' If not — log it as a motivation risk. APM People Interest Network | Well-Formed Outcomes | June 2026 8
• 13.
  CONDITION 3 &4 3 CONTROLLED The outcome must be reasonably within the owner's control to initiate and sustain — not dependent on someone else changing first. If external dependencies dominate, the goal needs reframing to what's within your power. THE TEST: "Can the owner start and sustain this without needing someone else to act first?" "Get the board to approve the budget" - depends entirely on the board "Present a board-ready business case by [date]" — fully owned PM TIP If a goal starts with 'Get [someone else] to...' — reframe it as what YOU will do to create that outcome. 4 SPECIFIC Describe the outcome specifically enough that everyone has the same picture. Sensory specificity — what you'll see, hear, and observe — turns vague intentions into clear behavioural targets. MoSCoW can help scope. THE TEST: "If you filmed success happening, would you know exactly what you were watching?" “Build a World Class railway through London” – what exactly is “World Class”? “X million successful journeys per year with 30 trains-per-hour and 95% punctuality" PM TIP Ask: 'Walk me through what a perfect day looks like six months after go-live.' That answer contains your acceptance criteria. APM People Interest Network | Well-Formed Outcomes | June 2026 9
• 14.
  CONDITION 5 &6 5 EVIDENCED Define how you'll know you've achieved it. Who creates the evidence? Where does it live? What will you be able to see, hear, feel or measure that's different from now? This maps directly to Definition of Done and acceptance criteria. THE TEST: "What will you see, hear or measure that tells you unambiguously 'we have it'?" "Improved user satisfaction" — how much? Measured how? By whom? "Post-resolution satisfaction score ≥4/5, measured via automated survey at close" PM TIP Run a 'Day in the Life Of' exercise — ask the outcome owner to describe a typical day when the project has succeeded. Evidence hides in that story. 6 RESOURCED Do you have — or have a confirmed plan to acquire — the skills, people, budget, authority, tools and energy needed? A well-resourced outcome either has everything it needs or has a credible plan to get it. Can you retain the resources you need until you don’t need them? THE TEST: "Do we have everything needed, or a confirmed plan to get it — before we start and until we finish?" "Launch by Q2" when the dev team is at capacity and no resource is confirmed "Launch by Q2 with two devs confirmed from [date] and QA allocated from [date]" PM TIP Resourcing AI and digital change is frequently underestimated. Explicitly budget for training, change management, and the first 90 days of adoption — not just build. APM People Interest Network | Well-Formed Outcomes | June 2026 10
• 15.
  CONDITION 7 &8 7 SIZED Too big: split into achievable components (each of which should itself be well-formed). Too small: it may not energise the team or connect clearly to the bigger picture. In agile contexts, sizing governs sprint goals and epics. THE TEST: "Is this outcome the right scope to motivate effort and be achievable in one go?" "Transform our digital customer experience" — too vast to own or evidence "Phase 1: customers complete account changes without calling the contact centre" PM TIP If you can't evidence it in a single sprint review or project stage gate — it's probably too big. Break it down until each part passes all 8 WFO tests. 8 ECOLOGICAL Who and what else is affected by this outcome? Will it harm adjacent teams, existing culture, skills pipelines, or customer relationships? Is it consistent with your organization’s vision? Ecology is the risk log for human systems (the check that no other framework applies). THE TEST: "What do we lose or harm if this succeeds? Who else is affected - and have we asked them?" AI chatbot deployed — agent workload unmeasured, job security unaddressed Impact on agents, skills, headcount, and customer trust segments all documented and addressed PM TIP Ask: 'What do we lose if we succeed?' If the answer is 'nothing' — you haven't looked hard enough. This is your hidden risk register. APM People Interest Network | Well-Formed Outcomes | June 2026 11
• 16.
  FRAMEWORKS SMART · MoSCoW· OKRs · WFO — What Each Does (and Doesn't) Dimension SMART MoSCoW OKRs WFO Clarity / Specificity Measurability Prioritisation Partial Stated in the positive Owner genuinely wants it Ecology / side-effects check Observable behaviour Partial Partial Works for experiments Partial WFO adds some of the human dimensions that other frameworks aren’t designed to check. APM People Interest Network | Well-Formed Outcomes | June 2026 6 Partial
• 17.
  WFO & AICHANGE Applying WFO to AI Change Projects AI Coding Assistant BEFORE (SMART-compliant, not WFO): "Roll out GitHub Copilot to the engineering team by Q2 to improve developer productivity" AFTER (WFO-informed): "Senior devs spend <20% time on routine code generation; juniors have a structured learning pathway; no headcount reduction within 12 months" ECOLOGY: What happens to junior skills? IP risk? Headcount assumptions? AI Customer Service BEFORE (SMART-compliant, not WFO): "Deploy AI chatbot to handle 40% of contacts, reducing cost per interaction" AFTER (WFO-informed): "Customers with routine queries get immediate resolution; agents handle complex/emotional contacts; agent satisfaction measured quarterly" ECOLOGY: Job security unaddressed = covert resistance from day one AI Project Reporting BEFORE (SMART-compliant, not WFO): "Use AI to automate project reporting and save PMs time" AFTER (WFO-informed): "PMs use AI for first-pass drafts, review and approve; 2hrs/week saved is formally reallocated to stakeholder work — not absorbed into more reports" ECOLOGY: Who's accountable when the AI misrepresents a risk? APM People Interest Network | Well-Formed Outcomes | June 2026 15
• 18.
  WFO IN AGILE WFOfor Agile Experiments — When You Don't Know the Answer Yet The outcome of an experiment is never the answer. The outcome is the quality of the learning and the decision it enables. TERMINAL OUTCOMES You know the destination Build this feature, hit this number, launch by this date All 8 WFO conditions apply fully Sensory specificity = what done looks like Most Stage Gate / waterfall deliverables live here DIRECTIONAL OUTCOMES You're navigating toward learning Spikes, discovery sprints, A/B tests, market probes Sensory specificity shifts: describe quality of learning, not the answer What decision will we be able to make that we can't now? What evidence will we have? How confident will we be? Ecology check for experiments: Is the organisation ready to act on whatever you find — even if it's inconvenient? APM People Interest Network | Well-Formed Outcomes | June 2026 14
• 19.
  INTEGRATING WFO INTOYOUR PROJECT Where WFO fits into your project lifecycle and documents Business Case WHY? Check the intended outcomes are positive, ecological, and genuinely owned by the sponsor — before money is committed. Project Requirements WHAT? Apply sensory specificity and evidence conditions. Run a MoSCoW check. Ensure each requirement maps to a well-formed outcome. Project Execution Plan HOW / WHEN? Check resourcing, control and sizing. Ensure milestones are evidenceable. Is the plan realistic and can it be controlled? Assurance / Quality Plans SHOW ME Use evidence criteria as the basis for quality gates. Acceptance criteria should describe observable human behaviour, not just system capability. DILO / HazOP / Post-Project SHOW THEM Ecology check at close — what changed beyond the project scope? What needs monitoring? Did the outcome stay well-formed throughout? APM People Interest Network | Well-Formed Outcomes | June 2026 17
• 20.
  In implementation, checkyour outcomes stay well-formed… Regularly re-checking that your outcomes stay true to the 8 conditions will increase chances of success and swerve unexpected risks 1 POSITIVE Is it still a positive outcome and does it still genuinely deliver the business case? 2 OWNED Do we all still think it can and will be done? 3 CONTROLLED Are we still in control of all the elements? Can any new risks be mitigated? 4 SPECIFIC Has there been any scope creep? Are deliverables still as clearly defined as they were? 5 EVIDENCED Is our data still good? Are we still getting it when we need it? 6 RESOURCED Are all our resources still on board? Are we using them where we expected to? 7 SIZED Have any parts grown too large or complex? If we split them are they still controlled? 8 ECOLOGICAL Has there been any change in the impact in other areas? Is it still sustainable? APM People Interest Network | Well-Formed Outcomes | June 2026 7
• 21.
  F I NA L P O L L Can we get your thoughts on these questions… Q3: Which WFO conditions could you easily introduce in your organisation? [choose any that apply] Reframe negative objectives as positives Run an ecology check Sensory specificity / true, observable outcomes Test for genuine ownership Q4: Do you think WFO might help your organisation if they were…? [choose one] Informally checked once before you start a project Built into your project documents and conditions Built in from the start and checked during the project lifecycle None - I can’t see us using them APM People Interest Network | Well-Formed Outcomes | June 2026 19 Q5: How do you think AI adoption projects might change the need for WFOs? [choose one] WFOs become more important Stays the same - WFOs are always important WFOs become less important
• 22.
  Thank you -your questions, reflections and discussion The 8 Well Formed Outcome conditions are: 1 POSITIVE Stated as what you DO want 2 OWNED Desired & driven by the owner 3 CONTROLLED Within your power to deliver 4 SPECIFIC Described clearly & unambiguously 5 EVIDENCED You'll know when you've got it 6 RESOURCED People, time, budget confirmed 7 SIZED Not too big, not too small 8 ECOLOGICAL Won't harm what matters elsewhere APM People Interest Network | Well-Formed Outcomes | June 2026 7
• 23.
  A B OU T T I M Tim Lyons Author, APM People Network Lead Tim has worked as a project and programme manager in various sectors for over 40 years. Along the way, he has experienced and used some of the traditional tools deployed by project managers and sponsors to define outcomes, some more successfully than others. Tim now consults, writes and presents extensively on matters relating to the human and neurological aspects of projects, including communication, ethics and problem-solving. He holds degrees in Philosophy, Coaching and NeuroLinguistic Programming (NLP) and is an NLP Master Practitioner. He is the Lead for the APM People Interest Network and is an APM Fellow. You can get in touch with Tim here: timlyons@gestionnaire.net www.linkedin.com/in/timlyonsprogman A B O U T S O P H I E Sophie Vyse Business Coach Sophie combines psychology expertise with 20+ years of hands- on Agile transformation experience. She has worked with organisations from Google and M&S to dynamic startups and has experience across Retail, Financial Services and Health. She is passionate about psychological safety, team performance and what makes the 'dream team'. Today: bringing NLP's Well-Formed Outcomes into the PM world — going beyond SMART & MoSCoW to define goals that people genuinely own, that anticipate unintended consequences, and that are specific enough to guide real behaviour. You can get in touch with Sophie here: If you need further Help implementing WFO in your project environment REMEMBER: SMART tests structure. OKRs test alignment. MoSCoW checks relevance. WFO tests whether the goal is real, owned and liveable for the humans who who have to achieve it. APM People Interest Network | June 2026