Strategy mapping is an approach to strategy implementation that flows from the balanced scorecard approach to formulation and measurement. Strategy mapping allows for a clearer understanding of the dynamics of strategy to be understood, especially at the implementation level. The framework was developed in order to do three things. These are to set appropriate objectives, establish a dominant value proposition, and then find critical strategies that support that position. The strategies relate to the four different elements of the balanced scorecard (Armitage & Scholey, 2006). Murby and Gould (2005) reinforce the idea that the balanced scorecard does not directly address strategy formulation, so the strategy mapping process acts as the set of guidelines for formulation in light of the findings of the balanced scorecard development process. Strategic Mapping Process

Armitage and Scholey (2006) outline the six steps of strategy mapping. The first step is to specify an overriding objective, the second step is to choose the value proposition, the third is to set the financial strategies, the fourth is to set the customer strategies. These are followed by executing the internal perspective strategies, and then planning the learning and growth strategies. The first step reflects the need of the business to answer the question of "over the next few years, what will take for the organization to succeed." Once the overriding objective has been established, the second step is to find the value propositions. Treacy and Wiersma (1993) propose the three value propositions. These are customer intimacy, operational excellence and product leadership. Thus, the company needs to determine which of these approaches to value creation it will use to pursue excellence.

The following four items of the strategic mapping process essentially involve creating tactical moves to reach the...

In that respect, they are simply a logical follow-up to the scorecard. The strategy-mapping process, however, merely dictates that these things must be done, but does not provide much guidance as to how they should be done. In order words, this part of strategic mapping is redundant once the balanced scorecard has been put into place, as they lack the critical link between theories, objectives and concrete action.
Another conceptual weakness in the strategy mapping process is that it emphasizes the financial perspective. The overriding objective of any business is to enhance shareholder wealth -- if one overriding objective is to be chosen, this is it. Then among the four perspectives, the strategy mapping process Armitage and Scholey (2006) proposes asks the organization to consider the financial perspective first. Structurally, therefore, there is considerable emphasis on the financial perspective. This runs counter to the logic of the balanced scorecard -- indeed this is the precise logic the scorecard seeks to eliminate. There is a lack of congruence at the philosophical level between Armitage and Scholey's strategic mapping and the balanced scorecard.

Relationship to Performance Management

The balanced scorecard emphasizes performance management through the establishment of objectives and measures that correspond to those objectives. In theory, philosophical incongruence notwithstanding, the strategy mapping process seeks to develop the precise tactics that will allow the organization to meet these objectives. The performance management objectives are set within the balanced scorecard and they serve as a control for the strategies that should flow from the strategy mapping. The role that strategy mapping plays here is in managerial discipline -- by providing a framework that managers are to work…