codexkit-strategy-scorecard-builder

# Strategy Scorecard Builder ## Purpose Turn strategy language into a measurable operating system that leaders can review and steer. ## When to use - A company or function needs a balanced scorecard or strategy map. - Leadership wants objectives, measures, and initiatives tied together. - Teams need to bridge strategy into quarterly execution. ## When not to use - The request is a loose ideation session with no horizon or accountability. - The user only needs a generic KPI list with no strategy context. ## Inputs - strategic themes, ambition, and leadership priorities - current KPIs, customer outcomes, and financial goals - process bottlenecks and capability gaps - current initiatives or portfolio constraints ## Procedure 1. Clarify the strategic themes and the change they are meant to create. 2. Build the logic chain across financial, customer, process, and capability layers. 3. Define a small set of measures, targets, and owners for each theme. 4. Link initiatives and quarterly OKRs to the scorecard instead of treating them separately. 5. Highlight conflicts, missing measures, and overloaded initiative portfolios. 6. Recommend a review cadence and escalation logic. ## Output - strategy map - balanced scorecard table - OKR and initiative bridge - review cadence and ownership model - open gaps or decisions ## Definition of done - Measures and targets clearly support the strategy. - Owners and review cadence are explicit. - The output shows how strategy connects to execution. ## Examples - "Design a balanced scorecard for our operations and customer teams." - "Translate this strategy deck into a scorecard and quarterly execution bridge." ## Quality Criteria - [ ] All claims reference specific frameworks, standards, or quantifiable data - [ ] Content matches the stated audience's expertise level - [ ] Recommendations are actionable — each includes a concrete next step - [ ] No unsupported assertions or generic filler language ## Verification (4C) | Check | Question | |-------|----------| | **Correctness** | Do referenced frameworks and standards match their official definitions? | | **Completeness** | Are all key concepts covered without significant gaps for the stated audience? | | **Context-fit** | Would this be useful for someone new to this domain, or is it too advanced/too basic? | | **Consequence** | If a stakeholder acted on this immediately, what could they misinterpret? | ## Edge Cases - **Conflicting frameworks** — State which framework takes precedence and why. Document the trade-off explicitly. - **Rapidly changing domain** — Note information currency date. Flag sections likely to need updates. - **Audience has mixed expertise levels** — Provide a glossary and mark advanced sections as optional. ## Changelog - v1.0.0 — Initial release