To understand the mechanics of a goal-setting platform we first need to understand the mechanics of setting a goal. I define a goal as a desired result that a person envisions, plans and commit to achieve.
Setting goals is not easy. It is almost like we as humans subconsciously want a way out of a difficult situation. By stating a goal vaguely we don't have to commit to it. Getting better at writing is vague, keeping yourself warm in your comfort zone. Committing to 100 days of writing on the other hand is scary: "Uggh, now I have to do it everyday". When things are easier to quantify, it will feel realer to fail, and who likes to fail anyway?
Using a framework will have a positive outcome because it guides us to better behavior. It tames our comfort zone, and reminds us to do better. The problem with frameworks is that they are often hard to remember. To understand a topic you need to play with it. I find the arguments of Andy Matuschak on why books don't work intriguing. Andy states that "books are surprisingly bad at conveying knowledge, and readers mostly don’t realize it." Real learning might only happen if people synthesize with the theory in a real-life environment. "Readers can’t just read the words. They have to really think about them. Maybe take some notes. Discuss with others. Write an essay in response."
Can software play a role in communicating advice? I think so. A to do app like Things could be seen as the digital manifestation of the book Getting Things Done by David Allen. Similarly Superhuman is based on the foundation of the 'religion' of inbox zero.
I think we could also use this framework for goalsetting. If software can gently guide us to reframe our goals, it will make reaching those set goals easier as well. The foundation for goals could be based on one of the goal-setting methods like SMART, FAST, or PACT. I personally think that the PACT framework is the most applicable for reaching ambitious goals. So let's see tomorrow how the PACT framework would fit in a goal setting platform....