« Do Strategic Themes Add Value in Strategy Mapping? | Main | The Short-Term versus The Long-Term – Can Organizations REALLY Manage Both? »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Sandy Richardson

Hi Jesus:
unfortunately, I do not speak spanish (though I wish I could!). If you have any specfic questions you would like me to comment on, perhaps I could respond in english and then you could have it translated into spanish. Just an idea!

Jesus Peral

Dear Sandy

I am spanish native and I created some time ago a blog about Strategic Management (sorry it is in Spanish)
If you can read spanish your comments would be very useful for me.

Sandy Richardson

Hi Lisa:
I have never experienced push-back on perspective weighting. This was likely due to the fact that everyone involved understood the objective of the exercise: to help prioritize work efforts and not to assign value to the various strategic objectives (SO's). It is important for all involved to understand that all of the strategic objectives on the strategy map (SM)make an important contribution to mission and vision achievement.
That being said, I usually see two distinct approaches to SO weighting. In one of these situations, higher weighting is given to the outcome-oriented perspectives (e.g. the financial perspective in the private sector) - largely due to their high visibility. In the other case, the highest weighting is usually given to the perspective that is closest to the bottom of the SM with the biggest gaps in SO capability (often the people or organizational capabilities perspective). The thinking here is that, based on cause and effect thinking, gaps closer to the base of the SM must be addressed first if the organization hopes to achieve its desired outcomes.
At the end of the day, it's important for each organization to resolve these differences when doing SM weighting.
The bottom line is that it's critical for all involved with the organization to understand the purpose of SM weighting - to prioritize work effort, not to communicate the value of the SO"s on the strategy map.

Lisa Hobart

Interesting ideas, Sandy. I haven't seen weights applied to Strategy Maps before (more often they seem to crop up on Scorecards). Anything that can help force organizational focus on a few critical things at one time is great. One question, though. Do you ever run into push-back on the idea of weighting the perspectives? I can see that doing so could raise concern about the message that could be sent by applying a lower weight to, say, the "people" perspective. Thoughts?

Sandy Richardson

Hi Robert:
thank you for the positive feedback and thank you for your valuable insights on this topic.
Defining (and sticking to) business priorities is the one thing I see organizations struggling with the most. The reward for those companies that push through the challenge is increased capacity and greater efficiency. Congratulations to you and your team for your tenacity in working through this challenge!

Robert Samuel

Great article Sandy. As a business owner I can really appreciate these strategies, especially #3. Prioritizing was something that my team and I lacked in the beginning. Once we got that straight, it was almost like an overnight difference in terms of productivity. :-)

The comments to this entry are closed.