Do Strategy Maps Work in Government - Part III

This is the third in a series about strategy maps in Government. Also see Part I and Part II.

How Understanding Competition Leads to a "Circular" Strategy Map

After going through the development of a strategy map with a government or mission-based organization, an interesting mental phenomenon often occurs. It is the realization that competition does exist, and it comes in the form of budgets and financial survival.

Many government leaders believe they do not have true competitors and many believe that the financial health is not the ultimate outcome. However, going through the strategy mapping process will alter this thinking. Here is why.

When developing a strategy map, understanding and role-playing one’s competition is a useful exercise that helps an organization understand what competitive activities must occur to remain unique and compelling. This concept may only seem relevant to the private sector and not to government.

Individual government departments do not typically consider themselves to have competition or to be affected by the forces caused by competition. A library department may not believe it competes with Barnes and Noble. A park department may not believe it competes with shopping malls or private museums.

 

However, they all compete for their own existence. This competition exists between departments and other state and local agencies. They compete for public and political recognition, for prioritization, and ultimately for budgets. The process of developing a strategy map helps make this reality more clear.

In most governments, leadership will quickly place customers at the top of a strategy map and financials or budget at the bottom. This has become somewhat of an accepted custom. Personally, I do not disagree. The assumption is that they are not in business to make money, as governments are mission based organizations that exist to serve their customers. This is true, yet in other sense, it is not the complete story.

The strategy map of a government entity is much more "circular" than the private sector. The achievement of citizen outcomes does directly impact the Vision; however, these achievements also have a strong connection back to the financial perspective of the strategy map.

In short, pleasing your constituents leads to positive political support and continued financial support through tax legislation or some other budget approval process. As a result, government executives must recognize how their citizen outcomes will play with the political bodies that hold the purse strings.

This is very different than a private sector firm that can just focus on making money. This money can simply be reinvested in their learning & growth perspective in any way they see fit. Governments must succeed in a way that ALSO maximizes their financial future and viability.

So, is financial success the chicken or the egg for government organizations? To me, it’s a key part of the circular nature of their strategy map, but understanding this issue helps making government strategies even better.

Comments

[Ray Scher]

Very interesting insights. The September 2007 Miami-Dade County budget hearings tend to support Michael's thoughts. Elected officials are now, more than ever, questioning the achievement of results related to missions of county departments and programs before allocating funds to continuing or expanding related services. I think folks here are starting to realize that a sound strategy of ensuring continued or expanded funding is to show results!