1. Introduction
Only a few years after introducing strategy maps to performance management by incorporating them into the balanced scorecard, Kaplan and Norton (2004) remarked that these were “as big an insight to executives as the balanced scorecard itself” (p. 9). It was a significant observation, given that the balanced scorecard became one of the most widely used frameworks used in practice (Rigby and Bilodeau, 2015). The power of the map as first introduced stemmed from its purported ability to effectively describe strategy in a cohesive and straightforward way, thereby increasing the likelihood of successful strategy implementation (Kaplan and Norton, 2001). Strategy maps could also be used in aiding in formulating strategy, in structuring problems, in defining measures and objectives, and in decision making (Kaplan and Norton, 2004; Kaplan and Norton, 2006; Lueg and Julner, 2014).
However, nearly two decades after introducing the strategy map to performance management, evidence suggests that the impact of strategy maps for performance management practice remains limited. There is evidence that few organizations use strategy maps as a part of the balanced scorecard or other performance management framework (Speckbacher et al., 2003; Tapinos et al., 2010), despite these being linked to effective use and satisfaction (Laitinen et al., 2010; Lueg and Julner, 2014). Further, strategy mapping in general often fails to be included in descriptions of the balanced scorecard (see Rigby, 2017), and is seldom used as a standalone tool in practice (Tapinos et al., 2010). In short, it appears that the strategy map and strategy mapping have not realized their potential for performance management.
There are several issues that could explain the lack of impact to date. First, descriptions of the role of strategy maps and how they are meant to work within the balanced scorecard framework have remained vague, often do not specify the outcome intended through their use, or apply overly generalized conceptions of performance (Hoque, 2014; Lueg, 2015; Öllinger et al., 2015). Second, many scholarly works on the strategy maps remain normative (Islam, 2018), or take the limited view of the strategy map as a management control device (Tapinos et al., 2010). Despite a few developments (e.g. the possibility of including time delays), this narrow focus contrasts with an evolving discussion of strategy mapping and its related causal mapping in general in management and operations research (Hodgkinson and Clarkson, 2005), which has not entered mainstream discussions of the tool within performance management. Rather, discussions of the strategy map as it appears in performance management remain bound to the balanced scorecard framework, which, it should be noted, appears to be on the decline (Rigby and Bilodeau, 2018). Therefore, if the map is to reach its breakthrough potential for performance management, it is useful to consider it separately from the balanced scorecard.
Therefore, the aim of this paper is to revisit a major component of performance management, the strategy map, to thoroughly consider the theory of how they work, and further consider this within a unique performance management context. There are two intended contributions through this aim: first, specifying purpose and extracting theory can help practitioners better fit them to purpose and allow maps to be employed more effectively. This synthesis addresses this aim specifically by offering several propositions inferred from the review results. Second, it aims to permit performance management research and practice to be able to adapt, adjust, and expand existing and emerging theory on maps and mapping beyond that offered in the original balanced scorecard framework. In other words, instead of whether strategy maps “work,” the interest of this study is to develop an understanding of the generative mechanisms behind strategy maps:
RQ1. How and in what circumstances do strategy maps contribute to increased organizational performance?
The objective of this paper is to address the research question through a realist synthesis (Pawson, 2006) of empirical studies on the use of strategy maps as a part of a performance management framework. A realist synthesis is a type of systematic literature review that focuses on developing a theory of how a particular tool, framework, program or intervention is meant to work, and then examines the evidence to evaluate the strength of the theory. Because it focuses on theory rather than the tool itself, it is well-suited for evaluating complex interventions like the use of strategy maps, in which there may be multiple, conflicting factors influencing its outcomes. The idea is that by separating the theory from the tool, realist synthesis can facilitate knowledge creation and make it easier to adapt its use to a particular context.
The paper proceeds as follows: first, it explores realist synthesis and the methods of review. Next, results are presented, and then discussed along with implications for research and practitioners.
Downloaded by 50.224.134.150 At 11:12 07 January 2019 (PT)
2. Methodology
Most interest around the strategy map within performance management has maintained Kaplan and Norton’s focus on the technical aspects of strategy maps (see Islam, 2018, for a recent review of these) to the detriment of the sensemaking processes that take place around them. Underlying this focus is a common position within performance management studies that the interpretation of performance information is straightforward, linked to positivism (Micheli and Mari, 2014). These assumptions can be problematic when considering the social aspects of performance management (Beer and Micheli, 2018), a criticism that has been applied to strategy maps (Modell, 2012).
Therefore, a potentially fruitful means of understanding how maps work is to also revisit the philosophical assumptions upon which considerations of the strategy map in performance management have been built.
This paper describes a realist synthesis (Pawson, 2006). In practical terms, the method begins with a guiding question: “What works for whom under what circumstances, how, and why?” (Wong et al., 2013). Underlying this question is a realist philosophy of science, which will be briefly discussed in the following paragraphs as a backdrop to the synthesis method.
2.1 Why realism?
Scientific realism developed largely in response to a criticism that traditional research approaches were limited in their ability to provide explanations because they relied on artificially creating or assuming closed experimental conditions (Sayer, 1992). In most cases, experimental closure is undesirable or impossible because reality is fundamentally open (Bhaskar, 1975). This openness quickly comes into conflict with the more commonly employed Humean view of causality which seeks to establish scientific laws by seeking events in succession (Hume, 1967).
Under this empiricist approach, reality is seen as obeying universal laws which can be uncovered through the repeated observation of events. Researchers can then induce the existence of these laws, which can then be tested via statistical methods to establish their validity.
However, scientific practice under the empiricist approach has been criticized because it effectively reduces reality to observable events. In social systems, this position has been cited as especially problematic because it allows for the meaningfulness of social interactions to be completely ignored or greatly reduced (Bhaskar, 1979).
As an alternative, realism adopts a generative view of causality under which cognitive, social and physical entities interrelate to produce events via mechanisms. The primary aim of science under this perspective is to identify these mechanisms and understand their nature in order to improve practice (Bhaskar, 2014, p. v). However, disagreements exist on the meaning of the term “mechanism”, which have complicated its application in practice (Dalkin et al., 2015), and so some further clarification is needed.
First, mechanisms are described as the generally unobservable relations between processes, physical and social structures, and ideas that produce outcomes (Astbury and Leeuw, 2010; Mingers and Standing, 2017), which may operate in different contexts in which other mechanisms may be operating simultaneously. Because of the focus on how mechanisms operate in particular contexts to produce outcomes, realist evaluation often reports results in a “CMO” configuration for context, mechanism and outcome (Pawson, 2013). However, several researchers have pointed out continued confusion on what constitutes a mechanism and what does not (Craver, 2009; Dalkin et al., 2015; Mingers and Standing, 2017). This discussion adopts the view of Mingers (2014), in which the mechanism explains the relation between the entities within a system that gives rise to the outcome of interest.
Before illustrating the concept of mechanism used here, it is important to note that from the realist perspective, mechanisms operate in a stratified reality (Astbury and Leeuw, 2010;
Revisiting strategy mapping
Downloaded by 50.224.134.150 At 11:12 07 January 2019 (PT)
IJPPM
Bhaskar and Danermark, 2006). There are a number of ways in which realists conceive of stratification (Bhaskar, 2010), but what is important here is the concept of emergence, i.e. that the properties of an entity cannot be reduced to any one of its components, but rather emerge from their interaction.
An example using a matchstick can help to illustrate these concepts. At one level, the combination of its chemical composition and the friction of the surface create a process of combustion which, given the right conditions (e.g. the presence of oxygen), will produce a flame. Chemical composition and combustion is the mechanism that explains the outcome of the flame but provide part, but not all of the explanation. For example, to achieve the generation of the flame matches generally cannot be lit under water. Neither will the flame be produced if the wrong technique is used: too much pressure, and the matchstick breaks. Too little, and there will not be enough friction for the reaction to take place.
This type of analysis is open to higher-order considerations such as why the match might be struck in the first place, or the systems of production and infrastructure that could explain its existence. It also includes an interest in secondary outcomes: light a match on an airplane, for example, and the interrelation of various social structures will likely result in the person’s arrest – an emergent outcome which cannot be explained through the match’s chemical properties alone and requires understanding how people make sense of the action.
2.2 Why realist synthesis?
Adopting a realist approach to discovery has several implications for how research is carried out and, importantly, how evidence is cumulated and synthesized. Critically, rejecting a view of causality based on events implies that traditional forms of systematic literature review (Tranfield et al., 2003) require revisiting.
Systematic literature review originated in the field of medicine as means of consolidating existing knowledge. These reviews were meant to increase rigor over traditional, narrative reviews through transparency, inclusivity, and a focus on explanation (Denyer and Tranfield, 2009). Realist synthesis adopts many of the elements of these reviews, but requires adapting explanations into the generative view, adopting a more flexible approach to evidence gathering and to collection, and by abandoning the traditional hierarchy of evidence in evaluation. These elements and their implications will be discussed below corresponding with the stages of review, but essentially realist syntheses involve two processes: extracting the theories of how a particular intervention works (the mechanisms) via abductive redescription or abstraction, and evaluating the strength of those theories through a critical examination of the studies uncovered through the search processes.
The following section describes the stages and methods of review, which following Pawson (2006) include identifying a topic, extracting theory, search for literature, selection and appraisal, extraction, analysis and synthesis.
2.3 Identifying the topic of review
The interest of this discussion is in extracting the theory of strategy maps within a performance management context, where with few exceptions, strategy maps are discussed as a part of the balanced scorecard framework. Here, a scoping study revealed generally vague descriptions of how the strategy maps were meant to work, corroborating observations of much literature on the balanced scorecard in general (Hoque, 2014). Therefore, it was thought that a focus on strategy maps would have the greatest potential impact for practitioners and also would benefit performance measurement theory building.
2.4 Extracting the theory of strategy maps within a performance management framework
In a realist synthesis, how an intervention is meant to work often needs to be interpreted or adapted to fit the realist ontology. Even if some research implicitly uses a generative model of causality, few are described initially in such a way (Wynn and Williams, 2012). Others may be useful for evaluating the effectiveness of maps but focus on outcomes whose primary interest is not the direct improvement of organizational performance, e.g. for conflict resolution (Ackermann et al., 2016).
Therefore, a scoping study served to develop an initial classification of potential mechanisms using the foundational texts of the balanced scorecard (e.g. Kaplan and Norton, 2001, 2004, 2006), practitioner resources on the topic (Balanced Scorecard Institute, 2017) and reviews on casual maps and strategy maps (Hodgkinson and Clarkson, 2005; Lueg and Julner, 2014). Theories resulting from the scoping study were refined as the study progressed through a process of abstraction or abductive redescription – in other words, describing how the maps were meant to work in uniform terms to fit performance management.
These were grouped according to their associated performance measurement stage, whether to structure problems, develop, implement or modify a performance management system, or for use as an analysis or communication tool. During the search process, the background section of each study included in the full-text review was evaluated to extract the theory, if present, of how the strategy map or mapping process was meant to work.
The mechanism theory, presented in Section 3, was further divided into hierarchies depending on level, such that the lowest involved largely psychological processes, and the highest considered organizational outcomes. This process and its implications will be explored in the discussion section, but centered on examining how maps could affect organizational properties via the actions of many individuals (Astbury and Leeuw, 2010).
2.5 Search processes
Figure 1 shows an outline of the process for the synthesis. The search for studies to evaluate the propositions began with keyword searches for “performance measurement” in the academic citation databases of Scopus and Web of Knowledge, and later expanded to include “causal map” and “strategy map.” The searches were intentionally broad to increase the likelihood of including relevant articles in the review. That search began with keyword searches of the Scopus and Web of Knowledge academic databases, resulting in 6,583 unique articles. Additional text filters resulted in 4,225 articles for title and abstract review. The review relied heavily on the snowball approach, following Denyer et al. (2008), where references of each selected article were searched for relevant evidence.
2.6 Selection and appraisal of evidence
For the purposes of this review, the definition of performance measurement came from Franco-Santos et al. (2007), who argue that a performance measurement system exists if there are processes of measure design and selection, data capture, and information provision, features performance measures and supporting infrastructure, and has the role of measuring performance. This definition was selected because it encompasses only the necessary conditions of a performance measurement system, and would allow for a wide range of texts to be included.
Selection criteria:
• addresses performance measurement or management in organizations;
• describes an empirical study;
Revisiting strategy mapping
explores the consequences of the use of strategy or causal maps for either structuring problems, developing performance measures, communicating performance or analyzing performance;
• journal is included in the Scopus Citations Index or Journal Citations Report;
• article is published between 1992 and 2017; and
• results in English.
Selection criteria were applied in stages. Titles and abstracts were reviewed separately to exclude only those articles that did not meet the selection criteria. Articles with the possibility of relevance were passed on for further review and were considered relevant if they could be used to evaluate the developing program theory.
Articles that met all the inclusion criteria that were published in peer-reviewed journals were included, though not all impacted the final synthesis to an equal extent. For example, though the study by Cugini et al. (2011) on the application of strategy maps in a university setting provided an example of a successful implementation, the study mainly focuses on describing the resulting strategically linked scorecard, offering little evidence for evaluating underlying causal mechanisms. On the other hand, studies were also evaluated if they were considered to have sufficient rigor and relevance but were not in either citation index, though only one, that of Vo et al. (2005), was included in this fashion.
Application of the selection criteria resulted in 52 studies which were included in the final review. Of these, more than 60 percent were featured in journals with a 2017 SCIMago
Downloaded by 50.224.134.150 At 11:12 07 January 2019 (PT)
Journal Rank in the first quartile, with over a third of the studies in three and four-star journals in the 2018 ABS Academic Journal Guide, both common means of establishing quality (e.g. Franco-Santos et al., 2012).
2.7 Extraction
An extraction form was used to categorize the proposed mechanisms, context, subject, intervention characteristics, and an assessment of relevance and rigor of each of the studies. As it became clear which factors were of particular interest, the extraction form was refined to include the new information, and studies which had been previously examined were examined again to consider any new information. This reflects a recognition that database protocols may need more flexibility in studies on organizations than in the context of evidence-based medicine (Tranfield et al., 2003).
2.8 Analysis and synthesis process
Unlike traditional systematic review, the process of analysis and synthesis takes place alongside assessing relevance and extracting data. Following Pawson (2006) and Wong et al. (2013), full texts were reviewed and analyzed. The logical mode for this process is referred to as abstraction by Pawson (2006) and abductive redescription by Bhaskar (2016), i.e. describing events in a theoretically significant way. The result is an evolving “mechanism sketch” (Craver, 2006), a baseline categorization of the critical features, processes and actors that can explain how strategy maps generate the outcomes of interest.
This baseline, and another key part of the synthesis process, comes from comparing and contrasting findings from the included studies to infer a likely explanation, so that relevant findings could be used to develop specific propositions. Though not discussed specifically by Pawson (2006), the process could be thought of as inference to the best possible explanation (Lipton, 2004). It is important to note that first, the same study may support one proposition while not another. Because the focus is on generative mechanisms, studies may also inform the evaluation of more than one proposition or mechanism. In this way, the findings of these studies were used to evaluate the mechanisms that were derived in the process of abstraction.
3. A theory of maps for performance management
Performance management refers to a wide range of processes which center on setting goals, defining performance measures, reviewing and acting upon performance data, and the activities that surround these, with the ultimate goal to improve organizational performance (Bititci et al., 2018). Strategy maps have been implicated in any number of these activities, but broadly, their use can be seen as addressing three separate but interrelated performance management stages or processes. These stages can be to structure problems, generally in the form of strategy formation, to select, define, modify or develop an existing performance management component or system, or to communicate, analyze or evaluate performance, here referred to as use. It should be noted that studies within performance management rarely distinguish between these different purposes, which, as will be discussed, have complicated research into strategy maps.
The following section explores how maps are seen to drive the desired positive outcomes of each stage. This theory is the result of abstraction described in the previous section, and its purpose is to provide a high-level framework that facilitates the evaluation of results. Alluding again to the match example where combustion provides a baseline explanation for how a match generates a flame, this section aims to find a baseline explanation as to how a strategy map would generate its outcomes.
Revisiting strategy mapping
Downloaded by 50.224.134.150 At 11:12 07 January 2019 (PT)
IJPPM
A summary of the articles included in this review can be found in Table AI which includes the citation, the methodological approach, propositions addressed, research context, the type of strategy map, its complexity, elicitation technique and, if appropriate, the method of its development.
3.1 Strategy mapping for problem structuring
Strategy maps within performance management were originally presented as a way of “describing strategy” in order to understand it (Kaplan and Norton, 2000). This statement highlights that mapping for structuring problems is an active process which aims to facilitate the generation of ideas, gaining a broader understanding, and ultimately pursuing a more effective strategy. Within management studies, mapping has been used to achieve a wide range of ends. Of interest to this review are the mechanisms that explain how the creation of maps work for strategy formation and execution for an individual, in groups, and finally how these can lead to the pursuit of a more effective strategy and increased organizational performance.
3.1.1 The outcome: what is a structured problem? Broadly, when exploring outcomes for individuals, these studies are concerned with gaining a deeper understanding of an issue. Understanding is discussed as task performance (Öllinger et al., 2015), new knowledge or ideas (Goodier et al., 2010), presenting a diverse range of concepts (Goodier and Soetanto, 2013), or complexity of maps presented (Xu, 2011).
There is also an interest in how participants perceive the strategy or strategy making process, which is often pursued in tandem. For example, mapping can be used for changing how people feel about the strategy itself, whether by allowing their views to be heard, by separating the ideas from the speaker and from the motivational effects these can generate (Ackermann and Eden, 2011). Because of the potential, mapping is used for consensus building and conflict resolution (Ackermann and Eden, 2005; Ackermann et al., 2014, 2016). Ultimately, within performance management, the outcomes discussed above are meant to facilitate the pursuit of a more appropriate or effective strategy (Goodier et al., 2010; Jenkins and Johnson, 1997). A full list of outcomes for structuring found in this review is included in Table I.
3.1.2 How are maps meant to help structure problems? Figure 2 presents the mechanisms that were found in the literature that would explain how strategy maps can generate learning, motivation, ownership and, ultimately, the pursuit of a more effective strategy – the outcomes sought through their use as a tool for structuring problems. These outcomes correspond to three levels that have been abstracted from the literature: a psychological level whose outcomes are understanding and motivation, a group or social level where, in addition to reaching a shared, broader understanding, there can positive changes in attitude, and finally, the generation and selection of an appropriate course of action at the organizational level.
For the individual, maps are meant to lead to understanding by functioning as a kind of mirror, a process referred to here as actualization. By creating a map, the mapper makes ideas about an issue explicit, and thereby can see and reflect upon them. Eden and Ackermann (2018) refer to the map in this process as a “transitional object.” The nature of the knowledge created and how actualization works have been debated extensively (see Hodgkinson and Clarkson, 2005 for an overview) but remain outside the scope of this paper. What is important is that the node-link structure of causal maps specifically is a key component because it allows seeing, reflecting upon and possibly modifying how ideas relate to one another (Eden, 1988).
Groups can achieve consensus or shared understanding, more holistic views of an issue and have more ideas presented in several ways. First, through the actualization process, participants are able to avoid embarrassment and “save face” (Eden, 2004), participate more, and also perceive the process as fair. As a result, participation, motivation and ownership of the strategy formation process increase. This mechanism is referred to here as inclusion.
Second, the visual mapping process allows participants to “piggy back” (Shaw et al., 2009) off one another’s ideas, and so the process has a self-referential effect. This mechanism is referred to here as reinforcement.
The ideas generated through mapping provide multiple alternatives for action beyond those of other techniques, and so allow decision makers to choose a more appropriate course of action through the increased understanding gained through mapping. This mechanism is referred to here as choice.
Figure 2 also includes a number of components which condition whether and the extent to which actualization will take place. These will be considered further when evaluating the evidence but can be divided roughly into the characteristics of the mapper and their environment, including the nature of the problem. As will be discussed, in groups and for the organization these are especially important for explaining (lack of) outcomes.
3.2 Mapping for system development
For the current discussion, “development” refers to processes that aim to alter the state of an existing performance measurement or management system and is meant to include both implementation of a new system and adaptation of existing ones. Within performance management, there is clear interest in using maps for system development and in developing maps themselves (Bourne and Bourne, 2011; Kaplan and Norton, 2004).
3.2.1 What outcomes are sought for development? Generally, the outcome sought during development is selecting or creating an “appropriate” measure, or more broadly, creating a more effective performance measurement system. The terms “appropriate” and “effective” are dependent on their context and take on different meanings in the studies in this review but drew on performance management literature. For example, Lucianetti (2010) investigates the use of strategy maps for translating strategy into operational goals, for adopting new performance measures, and for making cause and effect relationships between measures explicit. Drawing on Neely et al. (1995), Montemari and Nielsen (2013) seek measures that are related to specific goals, controllable, have an explicit management purpose, reflect system causality and provide vision. Studies also seek coherence, completeness, a balance of measures (Cugini et al., 2011; Parisi, 2013) or consensus as to the appropriateness of the included measures (Aranda and Arellano, 2010; Francioli and Cinquini, 2014).
3.2.2 How do maps help develop performance management systems? Development generally discussed either as an extension of the structuring process (Aranda and Arellano, 2010; Parisi, 2013). That is, mapping is meant to assist with the selection or measures or with the attribution of value. In effect, strategy maps help answer “what do we measure?” (Montemari and Nielsen, 2013), either by actualizing the idea, or by providing a sufficiently broad vision of the organization, thus increasing the likelihood that appropriate measures are chosen to be developed and included, or that other performance management system components are adapted to align to strategy.
3.3 A theory of strategy maps for use
Within performance management, the potential for maps for communicating and effectively analysis of organizational strategy and performance has been widely discussed (Francioli and Cinquini, 2014; Kaplan, 2012; Nørreklit et al., 2012). Rather than centering on the process of mapping, this discussion begins when a map has already been formed and codified. The typical form this takes within performance management is a hierarchical map, sometimes arranged into perspectives following the balanced scorecard, of a limited number
IJPPM
of performance measures (Kaplan and Norton, 2004). The following sections will consider what these reports have been used to achieve, and how they are meant to achieve it.
3.3.1 What outcomes are sought through use? Strategy maps have primarily been discussed within the context of diagnostic and interactive use (Simons, 1995). That is, there is an interest in evaluating the extent to which the organization has been effective or efficient in its pursuit of the strategy (diagnostic), and also in evaluating the extent to which the current strategy is appropriate (interactive). The interest within performance management centers around how maps can lead to better understanding and decision making, and ultimately to increased organizational performance. For an individual evaluating a map-style report, this review is concerned with how strategy maps effectively communicate performance relative to other types of communication.
Operationalized, the aim of using a strategy map for evaluation can be categorized broadly as enabling improved decision making for the individual, and for the organization consensus, collaboration and double-loop learning (Argyris, 2010). A list of outcomes of interest included in this review is included in Table III.
3.3.2 How do maps work for use? How maps are meant to bring about the outcomes described above can be separated into mechanisms explaining improved decisions making at an individual level and the organizational level. For the individual, given the way the mind works, that the node-link structure is appropriate for use, helping to reduce cognitive load and at the same time allowing the inclusion of a more representative depiction of reality (Frederiksen et al., 2011). This mechanism is referred in Figure 3 as processing.
There is some discussion that suggests that communicating and analyzing strategy maps facilitates understanding and empowerment, which facilitate organizational learning, consensus and strategic alignment (Kaplan and Norton, 2004; Kaplan and Norton, 2006). Because these discussions revolve around both evaluating the extent to which a given strategy has been achieved and also evaluating the appropriateness of the strategy itself, this mechanism is referred to here and appears in Figure 3 as evaluation.
4. Evaluating the evidence
The previous section has outlined how strategy maps are meant to work within a performance management context. However, in explaining how a match produces flame, what is also needed is to understand key conditioning components that would explain whether a given attempt will produce a flame or not. Therefore, the following section
6. Conclusions
Two decades after its introduction to the field, the strategy map has the potential to represent a major contribution to contemporary performance management. This review suggests that separating the strategy map from the balanced scorecard could help it realize its potential as a breakthrough theory within performance management. Doing so allows the identification of mechanisms that explain how strategy mapping can facilitate strategy formation, performance measurement system development, and strategy evaluation and communication, which can further lead to the development of more effective applications of the concept.
Realizing the potential of the strategy map will require addressing a mismatch between research focus to date and organizational reality. To fully utilize strategy maps within performance management, researchers will need to better understand how these feature with other performance management components. Doing so will require shifting focus from evaluative tasks for diagnostic use – representing the majority of research on evaluation – to observing how these function in organizations and how they can support the overall strategic dialog. Experimental research is helpful for better understanding the behavioral effects of these maps, and yet they often neglect the difficulty in developing and implementing them for use in organizations, generally operating in conditions of frequent strategic change (Porporato et al., 2017). Therefore, a major contribution of this review is to highlight the importance of differentiating these processes in order to analyze how maps work in organizations.
The second contribution of this review is that it begins to separate the theory of strategy maps from any particular tool or framework, which in performance management is generally the balanced scorecard. Through the realist synthesis process, the review offers a “mechanism sketch” (Craver, 2006), a baseline categorization of the critical features, processes and actors that can explain how strategy maps generate the outcomes of interest. Given the realist assumption of openness, the exact way that these features interrelate will vary from situation to situation, but the mechanism should remain constant.
Further, 12 propositions are offered on how strategy maps will work, for which purpose, and in what circumstances. Future research within performance management can build upon these to develop a unique theory of maps that is specific to and useful for the field. More research is needed to understand, for example, how the use of strategy maps for
Revisiting strategy mapping
Downloaded by 50.224.134.150 At 11:12 07 January 2019 (PT)
IJPPM
evaluation might lead to unintended, potentially negative impacts when they are combined with existing incentive structures (Cheng and Coyte, 2014; Mastilak et al., 2012), but there is also a need to explore interactions with target setting, defining KPIs, information flows and other performance management components. Doing so opens the possibility of discovering new applications of strategy maps and mapping within performance management.
Separating the theory from the tool is also important because it can help to explain and address failures at different levels. Distinguishing level could help explain why, for example, strategy maps could effectively improve communications across groups, but lead to poor decision making in an individual evaluative task. The view offered here is that understanding the two requires a consideration of largely different levels, one primarily cognitive, the other situated in and conditioned by organizational-level elements. Perhaps most importantly, a focus on how can help the strategy map to establish its own place within performance management study, and to evolve in the rapidly changing organizational context (Bititci et al., 2012).
The review represents one of very few realist syntheses in management studies, though recent calls for more reviews of this type highlight their perceived potential (Jones and Gatrell, 2014). By focusing on the underlying theory of how strategy maps are meant to work, these types of reviews open new lines of questioning that could be of interest to performance measurement and management.
Although the findings are encouraging, the review is limited in several ways. Perhaps most importantly, by taking a broad view of strategy maps across three stages of performance management, nuance has been sacrificed in the analysis of each. While maintaining sufficient breadth is useful for considering strategy maps within performance management at a high level, future studies will be needed to better establish particular configurations of elements that generate outcomes. This is not a call for lists in the form of context, mechanism and outcome, but rather for continued focus on building nuanced explanations of strategy maps.
The findings of this paper are important for practitioners using or considering adopting the use of strategy maps. First, it highlights that creating strategy maps is a highly accessible activity for achieving shared understanding of what organizations do and how they do it, even among diverse groups of stakeholders. What is significant, and distinct from recent reviews (e.g. Islam 2018), is that the process of creation is what drives much of the benefits to be had from the strategy map, and further one that likely requires significantly less investment than many elements of the performance management system. For example, simply attempting to create a strategy map as a group can be a useful exercise that can generate consensus. These benefits can be carried over to develop or implement appropriate performance measures, where they serve as a focus point for discussion to link measures to strategy. Conversely, practitioners should proceed with caution before investing in strategy map-style reports for communicating performance for diagnostic use. Not only are there multiple challenges to developing such reports, but they may also have unintended effects on behavior or simply be ignored.
The original purpose of the strategy map was to describe strategy at a time when intangible assets were being recognized as central to gaining sustainable competitive advantage. In the current global context, characterized by an increasing rate of change, the introduction of disruptive technology and societal shifts, organizations that effectively address complexity will have an advantage over those which cannot (Kelly, 2015). This review suggests that the strategy map is particularly well-suited to addressing this need because of its ability to support consensus building and learning, and therefore could support critical performance management aims in ways that have to date not been fully explored. By considering the theory of how strategy maps work and in what circumstances, both researchers and practitioners alike can move toward realizing the full potential of strategy maps in performance management.
