Build Strategy Map

Build Strategy Map

When to use

For strategy office, FP&A, or ops excellence practitioners building or refreshing a balanced scorecard strategy map. Assumes familiarity with BSC vocabulary; output is a structured draft for strategist review, not a board-ready conclusion.

Use when candidate objectives exist and need causal linkage across perspectives — the intellectual core of a scorecard, not objectives sorted into four boxes.

What this skill does not do

• Does not set perspective order — run /balanced-scorecard:define-perspectives first if no agreed top-of-chain exists.
• Does not select measures or targets — route to /balanced-scorecard:select-measures and /balanced-scorecard:set-targets-and-initiatives.
• Does not validate empirical truth of mechanisms — flags UNVALIDATED links for /balanced-scorecard:review-and-validate; does not invent causal prose to make the map look complete.
• Does not cascade to BU/team scorecards — use /balanced-scorecard:cascade-to-scorecards.

Preconditions

| Input | If missing | |---|---| | Perspective order (from define-perspectives or practice profile) | Halt — route to /balanced-scorecard:define-perspectives; a map without an agreed causal top is building on sand | | Candidate objectives or themes to structure | Ask for them; do not draft objectives from thin air without labeling output as scaffold-only | | Practice profile (~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-strategy/balanced-scorecard/CLAUDE.md) | Proceed with labeled assumptions from org-profile.md; flag [review] on sector/top-perspective choices |

Provisional mode

When inputs are thin (objectives named but mechanisms unstated, or perspective order assumed not confirmed):

• Label output CONFIDENCE: structured first pass — never defensible recommendation.
• Tag every unstated mechanism UNVALIDATED — no mechanism stated; do not supply plausible-sounding causal prose.
• List missing inputs explicitly in STRUCTURAL FLAGS.

Trust spine

• Confidence bands (structured-aggregation):
• High: MECE-complete map, every figure source-tagged, every upward link has a stated mechanism graded strong or weak.
• Medium: Mostly complete, some mechanisms weak or marked needs_review, structural flags listed openly.
• Low: Scaffold only — missing perspective confirmation, orphan objectives, or majority UNVALIDATED links; explicitly marked incomplete.
• Tag vocabulary: [verify], [review], [model knowledge — verify], [sourced: ], UNVALIDATED per house conventions in plugin CLAUDE.md.
• Failure modes:
• Strategic advice vs. support: Surfaces causal structure and flags; does not declare which objectives belong on the map. UNVALIDATED tags and [review] on weak mechanisms keep judgment with the strategist.
• Client confidentiality: Map content may include proprietary strategy — apply CONFIDENTIAL header from plugin CLAUDE.md; destination check before any exec-facing export.
• Accountability gap: STRUCTURAL FLAGS block (orphans, unfunded mandates) forces engagement; gate before board-/exec-facing final with explicit confirmation and reviewer note.
• Analytical Rigor: N/A for this shape — mechanism falsifiability is handled via rubric and handoff to review-and-validate, not MECE decomposition.
• Incentive Gaming: N/A for this shape — no status scoring or target-setting here.
• Escalation triggers:
• Novel sector model (e.g. dual-mission B-corp) where top perspective is genuinely ambiguous → pressure-test per define-perspectives, flag [review], do not force a single top.
• User asks to invent mechanisms they cannot state → tag UNVALIDATED, escalate to review-and-validate or a facilitated workshop; do not fill in.
• More than four objectives per perspective persist after merge suggestion → flag over-stuffing, route extras to set-targets-and-initiatives.
• Conflicting causal claims between objectives → surface both, ask strategist to resolve; do not pick a winner.

Causal mechanism doctrine

Every objective below the top perspective must link upward with a mechanism statement:

Achieving [this objective] is expected to drive [objective above] because [mechanism].

Mechanism quality rubric

| Quality | Test | Action | |---|---|---| | Strong | Names actor or process, intermediate effect, and why it reaches the parent objective; falsifiable in review-and-validate | Accept | | Weak | Logical connection but vague or unmeasurable ("improve culture," "drive excellence") | Accept with flag — hard to test later | | Invalid | Tautology, correlation asserted as causation, or "related to" with no chain | Reject — require rewrite or tag UNVALIDATED | | Missing | User cannot state a mechanism | Tag UNVALIDATED — no mechanism stated; do not invent plausible prose |

| Invalid / weak | Strong | |---|---| | "More revenue drives financial results" (tautology) | "Reducing churn from 8% to 5% retains $Xm ARR, directly improving operating margin" | | "Better customer experience improves customer perspective" (vague) | "NPS improvement from onboarding redesign increases referral rate, growing new-logo revenue" | | "Learning objective supports growth" (no chain) | "Certifying 200 sellers on new platform cuts demo-to-close time by 2 weeks, raising win rate" |

Workflow

Step 1: Confirm perspective order

Read practice profile and any define-perspectives output. State perspective order explicitly in the output header.

Step 2: Draft objectives

2–4 objectives per perspective. Draft top-down or bottom-up — either works — but test every link in the upward direction.

Step 3: Require mechanism on every upward link

Apply the rubric above. Every link gets Mechanism: [statement] or [UNVALIDATED — reason].

Step 4: Structural integrity checks

| Check | Definition | If found | |---|---|---| | Orphan objective | Lower-perspective objective with no stated upward link | Ask what it's for; add mechanism or remove from map | | Unfunded mandate | Top-perspective objective with nothing beneath plausibly driving it | Flag as wish, not strategy — add supporting objectives or demote | | Over-stuffing | More than ~4 objectives in one perspective | Suggest merge or demote extras to initiatives (set-targets-and-initiatives) | | Redundancy | Two objectives in same perspective that are the same thing in different words | Merge |

Step 5: Completeness and source-tag check

Before output: confirm every market figure, benchmark, or dollar amount is [sourced: ] or [verify]; no invented inputs.

Step 6: Persist the map

Write to the location in the practice profile (whiteboard, doc path, or plugin data/). This is a living artifact other skills read — review-and-validate tests these links; do not recreate from scratch each review.

Output format

CONFIDENCE: [defensible recommendation | structured first pass]
PERSPECTIVE ORDER: [top → bottom, from define-perspectives]

PERSPECTIVE: [top perspective name]
  Objective: [text]
  Objective: [text]

PERSPECTIVE: [next perspective name]
  Objective: [text]
    → Drives: [objective above]
    → Mechanism: [statement] — Quality: [strong | weak | UNVALIDATED]
  Objective: [text]
    → Drives: ...
    → Mechanism: ...

[repeat down through perspectives]

STRUCTURAL FLAGS:
  ORPHAN OBJECTIVES: [list or none]
  UNFUNDED MANDATES: [list or none]
  OVER-STUFFED / REDUNDANT: [list with merge/demote suggestion]

MAP LOCATION: [where persisted]

Worked example

Input: For-profit SaaS. Perspectives confirmed (Financial → Customer → Internal Process → L&G). User provides: Financial objective "Grow ARR 25%"; Customer "Improve onboarding NPS"; L&G "Certify all AEs on new demo platform" — no mechanism stated for L&G link.

Expected output (excerpt):

CONFIDENCE: structured first pass
PERSPECTIVE ORDER: Financial → Customer → Internal Process → Learning & Growth

PERSPECTIVE: Financial
  Objective: Grow ARR 25% YoY

PERSPECTIVE: Customer
  Objective: Improve onboarding NPS from 32 to 50
    → Drives: Grow ARR 25% YoY
    → Mechanism: Higher NPS reduces early churn, improving net retention — Quality: weak [review]

PERSPECTIVE: Learning & Growth
  Objective: Certify all AEs on new demo platform by Q2
    → Drives: (no Internal Process objective stated)
    → Mechanism: UNVALIDATED — no mechanism stated; orphan until linked

STRUCTURAL FLAGS:
  ORPHAN OBJECTIVES: L&G objective lacks Internal Process parent
  UNFUNDED MANDATES: none
  OVER-STUFFED / REDUNDANT: none

Quality checks before delivering

• [ ] Perspective order confirmed from define-perspectives or profile
• [ ] Every non-top objective has upward link with mechanism or UNVALIDATED tag
• [ ] Mechanism rubric applied — no invented causal prose
• [ ] Orphan, unfunded, over-stuffed, and redundant checks run
• [ ] Every figure source-tagged or flagged [verify]
• [ ] Map persisted to profile location (or user told where to save)
• [ ] Output does not read as a concluded board decision where output_class is draft-for-review

Propose profile update

When a stable convention surfaces during this run (thresholds, naming, tone, output format, or recurring corrections), propose a profile update: show the exact diff against ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-strategy/balanced-scorecard/CLAUDE.md (org-wide facts go to org-profile.md), ask for confirmation, and write only on yes. Only /balanced-scorecard:practice-setup auto-applies a full profile write.

Outputs

Follows plugin CLAUDE.md § Outputs — decision tree and reviewer note on delivery. Natural next branches after a map draft: cascade to scorecards, select measures, or schedule review-and-validate on UNVALIDATED links.

Source & license

This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.

• Author: daddia
• Source: daddia/claude-for-strategy
• License: MIT

Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.