The Office of Strategy Management. Harvard Business Review, 72-80.
Kaplan, R.S. ve Norton, D. P. (2005). A Summary by Ogunmokun Oluwatobi (15500595)
Introduction
In many organizations, there is a disconnect between Strategy formulation and Strategy execution. This disconnects breeds a persistent gap between the ambition and the actual performance of these organizations. The statistics says it all. Seven out of eight global corporations fail to achieve profitable growth, though more than 90% have detailed strategic plans with much higher targets but no coherent approach to manage the execution of those plans.
Why do we need the OSM?
Companies that have achieved performance breakthroughs by adopting the Balanced Scorecard and its associated tools to help them better communicate strategy to their employees and to guide and monitor the execution of that strategy were studied. These organizations have typically established a new unit at the corporate level to oversee all strategy related activities; it is called Office of the Strategy Management (OSM). The OSM when created becomes the central point for coordinating and facilitating the process of communicating of corporate strategy; ensuring that enterprise-level plans are translated into the plans of the various units and departments; executing strategic initiatives to deliver on the grand plan; and aligning employees’ competency development plans, and their personal goals and incentives, with strategic objectives.
Strategy Management: The New Support Function
The problem with the “The Old Strategy Calendar” where throughout the year, different teams and units engages in performance reviews, corporate communication, and knowledge sharing is that the activities are carried out largely in isolation and without guidance from the enterprise strategy. This partition of responsibilities creates the gulf between an