Why customized strategy frameworks have jumped the shark

There are lots of reasons why organizations struggle to manage and execute on their strategies but for some, the answer could be as simple as changing their strategy framework.

Here’s why: Customized frameworks invite confusion. And confusion is the enemy of strategy.

It used to be that everyone was on the same page with that old stalwart, the Balanced Scorecard. Since it came out in 1992, there have been many more frameworks introduced, like OKRs, V2MOM, EOS, and others. Not only did many organizations begin experimenting with the frameworks, but they also started customizing them to fit their own terms and processes, making it challenging for strategy execution.

Unfortunately, the organizations that I see struggling the most with strategy today are the ones using mashups or customizations of these newcomers in some form or another. (And no, it’s not helpful if your version of the framework rhymes with your company name.)

What makes a proven framework — without customizations — so valuable? It’s all about clarity and having a shared understanding of the path ahead.

The Balanced Scorecard vs. Customized Strategy Frameworks

When the Balanced Scorecard was introduced to the world in 1992, it was already a well-researched concept developed by two knowledgeable management theorists. Since then there have been five books and 15 articles written about it, and it’s been in the press for 25 years. Yes, there is a right and a wrong way to do the Balanced Scorecard, both of which are well-documented.

OKRs became popular in the 2000s as the result of John Doerr’s Measure What Matters book. It was an interesting idea and there were many case studies in the book, but there wasn’t as much follow-up with research. Now there are a variety of ways to approach OKRs. As a result, you can customize it to do just about anything you want.

On the face of it, that’s exciting… but it’s also challenging. The open-endedness of the customized approach has made it so that the framework no longer serves its core purpose very well: to align organizations so they work collaboratively in pursuit of a specific set of objectives over a specific time period.

Clarity vs. Confusion

All frameworks are grounded in similar concepts: You have goals (things you’re trying to achieve), measures (how you know whether you’re making progress or not), and projects or initiatives (things you’re doing to try to achieve those goals).

New frameworks tend to use new words for these fundamental components and even reorganize them. But inevitably there will come a time when questions arise.

Where does my acquisition strategy fall into place?
How do I separate my day-to-day operations from my strategy?
We do certain things on a regular basis that don’t drive strategic change… where do they go?

Unlike the Balanced Scorecard, when you're struggling with your OKRs there's no academic framework to refer back to. There’s no “North Star” that would lead you to say, Oh, THIS is what it should look like.

If your framework doesn’t fully address all aspects of strategy, people will start questioning it and look for their own answers. Too many conflicting interpretations will lead you to struggle in those areas.

Balanced Scorecard has clear core principles and supporting documentation companies can use as guideposts. You can point any of your employees to a 30-page article or a 200-page book and say, THIS is what we're doing. Even if you change a few small things, having those resources to fall back on is really helpful for an organization trying to learn a new approach.

The OKR framework has great potential but it lacks consistency. For example, Doerr wrote about one aspect of OKRs and referenced many organizations that are doing that that way. But I've yet to come across an organization that's doing OKRs the same way as he described. Doing OKRs by department rather than by individual, for instance, or using variably-timed cycles creates multiple interpretations of the framework, which leads to issues.

In the end, your group spends more time focused on the framework than on the strategy.

That’s the case with all customized frameworks — I mean when your organization takes what they like from multiple frameworks and creates “our way of executing strategy.” There is no well-researched approach, backed by a long history of helpful case studies.

The bottom line: If you’re using a customized framework and you encounter trouble, you’ll never know if the problem is the framework you’re using or the strategy itself.

‍

If you’re using a customized framework and you encounter trouble, you’ll never know if the problem is the framework you’re using or the strategy itself.

‍

Shared Understanding vs. Misunderstanding

Another problem is when people customize their frameworks by department. They might use the term objectives in one department and goals in another, for example.

While a change like this might be beneficial for an individual department — if the risk management department customizes terms to talk about how they manage risk, for instance — it will be an obstacle to organizational alignment.

Strategy is all about everyone rowing in the same direction; customization threatens that alignment. Even customizing something as simple as goals and objectives or measures and KPIs hinders communication between different departments or divisions. Not only does it add complexity to business operations but it also requires people to learn a different “language” should they move from one division to another.

When you use a proven strategy consistently, everyone learns the same way (and terms) once, and that shared understanding is reflected across all organizational meetings, discussions, and reporting. The path to strategy execution becomes straightforward.

The Slippery Slope of Customization

Why does customization happen in the first place — and how can you stop it from taking over your strategy?

Sometimes organizations manage by committee or consensus in an attempt to be welcoming and friendly, particularly when it comes to new arrivals. Someone may have used OKRs or another framework previously and suggests that their new employer make a change.

If an organization is currently using the Balanced Scorecord, a strategy manager’s reaction may simply be to change a few terms to make the framework seem more familiar to the newcomer. (“Instead of saying initiatives, why don’t we just call them strategies?”) But these kinds of concessions ultimately cause confusion because, even though you’re (mostly) doing it the way you used to, you’ve added a new twist to it.

Confusion is sparked. Momentum is lost.

If you feel strongly about taking the straightforward, simpler path to strategy execution, make a conscious decision to choose the Balanced Scorecard framework. Commit to educating your team around it:

• Provide definitions and specific examples.
• Provide resources as reference for the framework.
• Demonstrate how to align departmental objectives with organizational ones.
• Create financial goal terminology that is the same across all departments.
• Define the structure of your meetings.
• Talk about strategy regularly, to everyone.

Then agree to not make any changes to the items above — at least until you’ve given this approach a fair chance.

Once you abandon the distraction of customizations and commit to the tried-and-true path, you’ll quickly realize its appeal. When problems crop up, you’ll never again have to wonder “Is it my framework?” or “Is it my strategy?” You’ll already know the answer. And you can get started righting the ship immediately.