The planning gap
Arrows on the map, load in the plan
A strategy map is one of the clearest pictures a leadership team can draw. Learning and growth objectives support better internal processes, better processes serve customers, and customers drive financial results. Each arrow is a hypothesis about how the strategy works. What the map doesn’t show is load: two arrows can depend on the same finance, IT or operations team in the same quarter.
The Balanced Scorecard asks leaders to choose, rank and resource the strategic initiatives that close the gap to each target. Objectives, measures and targets get careful debate, while the initiatives column often comes last and starts from the projects already running. Initiatives end up underfunded, overlapping or competing for the same people, and a scorecard was never designed to show that.
Cascading adds another layer. Business units and shared services each hold their own scorecard and initiatives. When the corporate strategy shifts, every unit reworks its plan alone, the shared teams get asked twice, and the conflicts surface a quarter later as missed targets. Strategy reviews then see which objectives are behind, without the material to decide what to change.