Set targets and indicators
Step 6 of 12 Strategy Development
The vision and objectives agreed in the previous step say where the area wants to go. This step makes that ambition measurable. A target fixes how far and by when, and an indicator is the thing you will actually measure to know whether you are getting there. Without them a plan cannot be steered while it runs or judged once it ends, and the baseline you fixed back in Step 3 has nothing to be compared against. The task here is to turn each objective into a small set of clear targets and the indicators that track them.
From objective to target to indicator
SUMP treats this as a single chain. An objective states a direction, such as bringing daily destinations within reach without a car. An indicator is the measurable quantity that reflects movement in that direction, such as the share of residents who can reach a grocery on foot. A target adds a value and a deadline to the indicator, turning "improve grocery access" into "raise it from today's level to a defined level by a defined year". Each link in that chain has to hold. An objective with no indicator cannot be tracked, and an indicator with no target gives you a reading but no standard to read it against.
The DREAMS impact-assessment framework, set out in Deliverable 6.1, organises this around six impact areas. They are the headings under which a 15-minute plan in the outskirts is most usefully measured.
The six impact areas
These six areas describe what a 15-minute plan is trying to change. They sit alongside the six features you used in Step 2 to read your outskirt, its density, diversity, design, governance, business models and human perspective. Those describe the place you start from, while the impact areas describe the difference you are setting out to make. Not all six will carry equal weight in your plan, and Deliverable 6.1 is honest that they were not equally represented across the living labs either, because each area only matters as much as the measures you are testing make it matter.
Choosing indicators that fit your area
A long indicator list is not a virtue. The art of this step is picking a short set that genuinely tracks your objectives and that you can actually populate with data. DREAMS screened its candidate indicators on three questions, and the same three work for any city.
The first is sensitivity. Will the indicator move if your plan succeeds? An indicator that barely responds to the measures you are planning tells you nothing about them. DREAMS found, for instance, that conventional walkability and cyclability indices reacted only weakly to the kind of new mobility services the labs were testing, so they were poor choices for judging those measures.
The second is relevance. Does the indicator reflect what your residents actually need, and in particular the groups your Step 3 diagnosis singled out? An indicator that matters to a consultant but not to the people living there will not hold attention or drive decisions.
The third is measurability. Can you collect or model the data behind it, at the spatial and temporal scale your evaluation works at, within the budget and timeframe you have? An indicator you cannot populate is an intention, not a measure.
Two practical disciplines round this out. Keep the set small, on the order of ten to twelve indicators rather than fifty, so the team and your stakeholders can keep the whole picture in view. And watch for overlap, so the same effect is not counted twice under two headings, for example listing both carbon emissions and a broader environmental impact that already contains them. Cover the negative effects as honestly as the positive ones, since a measure that helps one group can burden another, and an indicator set that only looks for good news will miss exactly the trade-offs this step exists to surface.
A neighbourhood that looks well served on a textbook standard can fall sharply once you measure it for the people who depend on proximity most. A target pinned to the area average will be met long before those residents see any difference. Frame the headline target around the worst-served group and around real choice, two or three groceries within reach rather than a single one, and the plan stays aimed at the gap it is meant to close.
One area often leads - equity in Overvecht
In several living labs a single impact area dominated the local objective, and that is what shaped the indicators. The clearest case is Overvecht in Utrecht, where the lab was framed around migrants and low-income households from the start. Measured against a normative 15-minute standard the district scores a multi-amenity compliance of 0.71, which looks respectable. Measured with the preferences of its low-income residents, that figure falls to 0.55, a drop driven mostly by poor walking access to grocery stores and pharmacies, the very amenities those households weight most highly. For a plan with an equity objective, the meaningful indicator is plainly the compliance figure for low-income residents, not the district average, and the target has to be set against that lower number. These per-group accessibility figures come from Deliverable 3.1.
The pattern repeats elsewhere with different areas in the lead. In Rákosmente near Budapest, where the objective centred on shared micromobility and reducing car use, the workshop indicators that emerged were carbon saved, kilometres travelled and the share of car trips a bike-sharing service could realistically substitute. Reading how a comparable lab translated its main objective into a handful of concrete indicators is a fast way to draft your own.
Setting your own targets and indicators
The sequence is the same whether you use the DREAMS framework or your own. Start from the objectives agreed in Step 5 and, for each, decide which of the six impact areas it falls under. Choose at most a couple of indicators per objective that pass the sensitivity, relevance and measurability test, leaning on indicators you can already populate from your Step 3 baseline. Attach a target to each, a direction, a level and a year, and where equity matters set that target against the group the gap hits hardest rather than the average. Record the data source, the method and the measurement frequency next to each indicator now, while the reasoning is fresh, because these are exactly what you will pick up again in Step 11 when the plan is re-measured.
The platform's KPI library lets you browse indicators already mapped to the six impact areas, with their definition, measurement method and data needs, so you can adopt a tested indicator rather than invent one. For weighing targets and trade-offs with several stakeholder groups who value the impact areas differently, the stakeholder-based impact scoring approach gives each group a structured way to rate how an option performs against the indicators that matter to them.
For a full practitioner manual on choosing indicators, setting baselines and building a monitoring plan, see the CH4LLENGE Monitoring and Evaluation Kit, one of the four SUMP kits and the one written for exactly this step. A fuller list of guidance and related projects is on the related initiatives and resources page.