GOVERNANCE scorecard reports flow up. They start at the bottom, with each unit checking its own performance against the commitments it had made in its unit subsidiary strategy map. They then move up to the middle, with each department also checking its performance against the commitments it made and the targets it set in its departmental subsidiary strategy map. It finally moves to the very top of the management hierarchy, the CEO. At this high level, the checking of performance is against commitments made and targets set in the overall corporate strategy map itself.
All these governance scorecard reports, checking performance against commitments and targets, end up with the board, where the corporate buck finally stops. The board had set the whole governance process moving. It had formulated and approved the corporate strategy map. It had aligned the corporate organization with the demands of that strategy map. It had asked, for instance, for subsidiary strategy maps from the different departments that would be fully aligned with and supportive of the corporate strategy map. Now the board, at the end of every pre-agreed assessment period, gets all these governance scorecard reports.
What should the board do with them?
If it takes its strategy role seriously, as it must, the board should spend time evaluating these governance scorecards and then making important decisions based on them.
The problem the board has to resolve in this regard is its lack of time to make a proper evaluation of all these governance scorecards. How may it resolve this problem? It may ask for a designated small office, an Office for Strategy Management (OSM), to assist it mainly in evaluating the governance scorecards presented to it, and subsequently making appropriate decisions based on them. …