Strategy Mapping The author of this report has been asked to write a brief report relating to strategy mapping and hot it relates to performance management and the establishment of value propositions. The above touches on three important dimensions of any business and they should all be planned for accounted for in the best and most effective ways possible. The report below will explain this in more detail or all three dimensions.

Strategy mapping, in a nutshell, is the planning of a strategy from what it can do in theory and then extended to how profitable it can be in the future. Just because the strategy mapping process is started does not mean the project can or should go forward and it does not mean that the project would ever be profitable. All it means is that the path to potential path to profitability is being mapped out. It may work out and it may not. On top of that, a better course of action may be seen that is better than the other options. Strategy mapping is something that is commonly, although not always, part of the balanced scorecard process although this is not necessarily the case in all instances. The strategy map very much resembles a flow chart in that it shows interconnected circles and rectangles with "flow" lines in between (Excitant, 2013).

Generally speaking, each objective in the path to profitability will be represented by a shape. The amount of objectives is usually a dozen or two…if that. Any more than that is a muddling and over-complication of the process. If there are multiple small steps that are somewhat related or intimately related, they can often be condensed together in a single step. This whole process was envisioned and explained by Robert Kaplan and David Norton as part of the broader framework of the balanced scorecard (Excitant, 2013).

As for performance measurement, this dynamic takes on two major forms. First up is the measurement of performance at the company level. This would...

Using these multiple points of analysis can reveal where precisely performance bottlenecks are occurring. Looking only at the highest levels can reveal issues. However, it does not necessarily (and often does not) point to the right department that should be scrutinized for further review (Vorhauser-Smith, 2012).
Going just a little lower down the organizational ladder may or may not reveal things as well. While it will probably tell you the division that is the problem, divisions are often quite large and expansive and the division can have different points in and of itself where problems can exist. This is when getting to the department or reporting manager level can be extremely instructive and identify where the weak points are (Vorhauser-Smith, 2012).

The other main point of analysis as far as performance measurement goes is the employee level. Obviously, it would behoove an employer to map the desirable strategic and business outcomes to the performance of the employee as a misalignment between what the employee is doing and the overall goals of the firm will lead to wasted efforts or, at the very least, less than optimal results as compared to where they could or should be. What employees are told to do and the measurement thereof needs to be clearly linked to the objectives and desired outcomes of the firm and there should be no break between the two unless there is a very good reason. Obviously, this will be rare but there are times where non-value added activities sometimes have to be done to engender good will with the clients and the community (Vorhauser-Smith, 2012).

As far as value propositions go, this is like the performance management dimension in that it is multi-faceted. It is often associated with a business to customer relationship but the definition of a customer…