Any commitment is based on a trade-off Process, against other targets, and considering any Constraints. The specified Goal Level may need to go through a series of changes, as circumstances alter and are taken into consideration.
A specified Goal Level will reasonably satisfy Stakeholders. Going beyond the Goal, at the Cost of additional Resources, is not considered necessary or profitable – even though it may have some value to do so.
1. To reach a Goal Level is a success to specific Stakeholders. It is also a sort of “stop” signal (a red light) for use of project Resources on the specific performance Attribute concerned: although better Levels might be reached, and might be of value to some, they are not called for, under the stated Conditions. For example, the additional value gained, given the estimated costs, is not viewed as worthwhile. In economic terms, we have at the Goal Level probably reached the point of diminishing return on investment.
2. “Goal” is intentionally not used for Resource-Targets (“Budget” is used instead).
A single arrowhead, on a performance arrow, pointing towards the future. The same icon as for Budget *480 (which is on a Resource arrow, --->--->O).
Always use an output arrow from a Function oval to represent a performance Attribute. The Goal icon is the “>“ on the Scalar arrow.
If other Scalar Levels are shown, the positioning of the tip of the icon symbol should reflect the Goal Level relative to these other Levels.