Kaplan & Norton vs. Porter: Comparing Strategic Frameworks
This paper compares and contrasts two widely used strategic business frameworks: the Kaplan and Norton Balanced Scorecard strategy map and Porter's Five Forces model. The Kaplan and Norton approach focuses on internal strategic management across four perspectives—financial, customer, internal, and learning/growth—represented through a cause-and-effect strategy map. Porter's Five Forces model, by contrast, examines the external competitive environment through five key forces: competitive rivalry, buyer power, supplier power, threat of substitution, and threat of new entry. The paper identifies key similarities between the two models, including their use of visual diagrams and alignment with strategic decision-making, while highlighting their primary difference: one is internally focused and the other externally focused. The paper concludes that both frameworks are most valuable when used together.
- Introduction: Overview of Kaplan-Norton and Porter frameworks
- The Kaplan and Norton Strategy Map: Balanced scorecard's four perspectives explained
- Porter's Five Forces Model: Five external competitive forces described
- Similarities and Differences Between the Two Models: Internal vs. external focus and diagram complexity
- Conclusion: Both models recommended for strategic use
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper maintains a clear compare-and-contrast structure throughout, consistently returning to both models rather than treating them in complete isolation.
- It grounds abstract frameworks in concrete components—listing the specific forces in Porter's model and the four balanced scorecard perspectives in Kaplan and Norton's—giving readers a functional understanding of each.
- The concluding insight that the two models are complementary rather than competing adds analytical depth beyond simple description.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates the use of a point-by-point comparative analysis applied to theoretical business frameworks. Rather than summarizing each model separately and leaving the reader to infer connections, the author explicitly identifies shared traits (diagram-based representation, strategic decision focus) and key divergences (internal versus external orientation), which is the hallmark of an effective compare-and-contrast essay in business studies.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a brief framing introduction, moves into two descriptive sections—one per framework—and then synthesizes the comparison in a dedicated analysis section before closing with a short practical conclusion. This mirrors the classic academic structure of description followed by analysis, making it straightforward for undergraduate-level business coursework.
Introduction
This paper compares and contrasts two widely used models in strategic business decision-making. One is the framework developed by Kaplan and Norton, centered on a strategic management system commonly known as the Balanced Scorecard. The other is Porter's Five Forces model. The two frameworks are similar in some respects but differ significantly in others. While both approaches serve different functions, they are ultimately aligned toward the same overarching goal: strategic decision-making and business situational awareness.
References
MindTools. (2016). Porter's Five Forces: Assessing the balance of power in a business situation. Mindtools.com. Retrieved 18 March 2016, from https://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newTMC_08.htm
SASB. (2014). Sustainability and the Five Forces model. Sustainability Accounting Standards Board. Retrieved 18 March 2016, from http://www.sasb.org/five-forces/
VBM. (2013). Summary of strategy maps—Kaplan Norton. Valuebasedmanagement.net. Retrieved 18 March 2016, from http://www.valuebasedmanagement.net/methods_strategy_maps_strategic_communication.html
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.