define-perspectives

name	define-perspectives
description	This skill should be used when the user asks to "define our perspectives," "set up our scorecard structure," "should we use the standard four perspectives," or needs to decide the perspective set and causal-chain order before any objectives get drafted.
allowed-tools	Read, Grep, Glob
metadata	{"version":"0.3.0","owner":"balanced-scorecard practice","review_cadence":"quarterly","work_shape":"structured-aggregation","permission_tier":"advisory","output_class":"draft-for-review","sourcing_policy":"volatile-facts-must-be-sourced"}

Define Perspectives

When to use

For strategy office or FP&A practitioners deciding the perspective set and causal-chain order before drafting objectives. The real decision isn't naming four boxes — it's which perspective sits at the top of the causal chain, because every other objective ultimately has to serve that end.

What this skill does not do

• Does not draft objectives — output feeds /balanced-scorecard:build-strategy-map only.
• Does not select measures or targets — route to /balanced-scorecard:select-measures and /balanced-scorecard:set-targets-and-initiatives.
• Does not decide hybrid top perspective for the user — runs pressure test and surfaces trade-offs; strategist chooses.
• Does not replace practice-setup — reads practice profile; run /balanced-scorecard:practice-setup if profile is empty.

Preconditions

Input	If missing
Practice profile and org profile	Read if present; if sector unknown, ask before applying checklist
Sector / mission constraint awareness	Ask — do not default to for-profit Financial-at-top
User confirmation on ambiguous hybrid	Flag [review]; do not fake a single top when pressure test is unresolved

Provisional mode

When sector is unclear or user has not answered pressure test:

• Label CONFIDENCE: structured first pass.
• Present checklist options with [review] on unresolved hybrid.
• Do not proceed to build-strategy-map handoff without stated top perspective or explicit dual-track flag.

Trust spine

• Confidence bands (structured-aggregation):
  • High: Sector confirmed, top perspective chosen via checklist or documented pressure-test answer, every perspective has stated causal role.
  • Medium: Mostly complete; weak rename rationale or fifth-perspective proposal under review.
  • Low: Scaffold only — sector unknown or hybrid unresolved; dual-track flagged explicitly.
• Tag vocabulary: [review] on subjective structural choices; [verify] on user-stated sector facts.
• Failure modes:
  • Strategic advice vs. support: Surfaces checklist and pressure test; does not pick Financial vs Mission for hybrid orgs without user answer.
  • Client confidentiality: Perspective choices may reveal org strategy — apply CONFIDENTIAL header when appropriate.
  • Accountability gap: TOP-PERSPECTIVE DECISION block forces explicit rationale; unresolved hybrid → dual-track note, not silent default.
  • Analytical Rigor: N/A — structural framing, not MECE analysis.
  • Incentive Gaming: N/A — no scoring or tracking.
• Escalation triggers:
  • Hybrid org with no pressure-test answer → ask test; flag dual-track if genuinely cannot choose.
  • Fifth perspective proposed → run gate; default resist unless user articulates trade-off.
  • Mission-driven org with Financial-at-top requested without rationale → flag [review], cite checklist.
  • Cosmetic renames without causal role → reject rename or require causal-clarity rationale.

Top-perspective decision (inline checklist)

Run this before naming perspectives. The top perspective is the ultimate end the entire map serves.

Sector / constraint	Top perspective	Causal logic
For-profit, no unusual mission constraint	Financial	L&G and Internal Process are means → Customer is intermediate end → Financial is ultimate end
Mission-driven (nonprofit, public sector, explicit non-financial primary mandate)	Mission or Stakeholder Impact	Mission is ultimate end → Financial moves to enabling/stewardship role ("Financial Sustainability" — how the org funds delivery)
Hybrid (e.g. B-corp claiming dual primacy)	Ask the pressure test	See below

Pressure test (when ambiguous)

Ask: "Under real pressure — budget cut, donor loss, activist campaign — which would the organization sacrifice for the other?"

Answer reveals	Top perspective
Would cut mission programs to preserve margin	Financial
Would accept losses to preserve mission outcomes	Mission / Stakeholder Impact
Genuinely cannot choose	Say so — map may need dual-track review cadence; do not fake a single top

This is a structural decision, not a rename. Mission-at-top flows causality differently than Financial-at-top.

Workflow

Step 1: Load profiles

Read ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-strategy/balanced-scorecard/CLAUDE.md and org-profile.md for sector, mission constraints, and existing perspective vocabulary.

Step 2: Confirm sector and top perspective

Apply the checklist above. State the choice and rationale explicitly in the output.

Step 3: Set full perspective list and order

Four perspectives by default, top of causal chain first:

Order (for-profit default)	Standard name	Causal role
1 (top)	Financial	Ultimate end — what success means economically
2	Customer	What the org must deliver to customers/stakeholders to achieve Financial
3	Internal Process	What processes must excel to serve Customer
4 (foundation)	Learning & Growth	People, culture, systems that enable Internal Process

For mission-driven orgs, reorder so Mission/Stakeholder Impact is #1 and Financial Sustainability is an enabling perspective (typically #4 or paired with L&G — state the role clearly).

Use org vocabulary when it clarifies causal role — if renaming, state what causal job the renamed perspective plays (not cosmetic relabeling).

Step 4: Fifth-perspective gate

If the user proposes a fifth perspective (Sustainability, Risk, Innovation, etc.):

Test	Action
Can this live inside Internal Process or Learning & Growth without losing strategic force?	Fold it in — explain where
User can articulate why it cannot fold and what trade-off it forces	Keep as fifth — rare
Default	Resist — fifth perspectives dilute fixed-structure trade-off discipline

Step 5: Handoff check

Perspective set with causal order explicit is direct input to build-strategy-map. No objectives drafted here.

Output format

CONFIDENCE: [defensible recommendation | structured first pass]
SECTOR: [for-profit | nonprofit | public sector | hybrid]

TOP-PERSPECTIVE DECISION:
  Choice: [Financial | Mission/Stakeholder Impact | other | dual-track]
  Rationale: [checklist row or pressure-test answer]

PERSPECTIVES (top of causal chain first):
1. [Name] — [causal role: ultimate end this map serves]
2. [Name] — [causal role: what it must produce to serve #1]
3. [Name] — [causal role: what it must produce to serve #2]
4. [Name] — [causal role: foundational enabler]

RENAMES APPLIED: [any, with causal-clarity rationale — or none]
FIFTH-PERSPECTIVE REQUEST: [none | proposed | accepted/rejected with reason]

Worked example

Input: Nonprofit food bank. User states mission outcomes matter more than surplus margin under donor pressure.

Expected output (excerpt):

CONFIDENCE: defensible recommendation
SECTOR: nonprofit

TOP-PERSPECTIVE DECISION:
  Choice: Mission / Stakeholder Impact
  Rationale: Pressure test — would accept losses to preserve meals served

PERSPECTIVES (top of causal chain first):
1. Mission Impact — ultimate end: households food-secure in service area
2. Program Delivery — what must excel to drive mission outcomes
3. Internal Process — operational efficiency enabling delivery
4. Financial Sustainability — enabling perspective: funding model sustains programs

FIFTH-PERSPECTIVE REQUEST: none

Quality checks before delivering

• Top perspective chosen via checklist or pressure test — not defaulted blindly
• Mission-driven orgs do not default to Financial-at-top without rationale
• Every perspective has stated causal role in the chain
• Fifth perspective gate applied if requested
• Output ready as input to build-strategy-map (no objectives drafted here)
• Hybrid unresolved cases flagged dual-track, not forced to single top

Propose profile update

When a stable convention surfaces during this run (thresholds, naming, tone, output format, or recurring corrections), propose a profile update: show the exact diff against ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-strategy/balanced-scorecard/CLAUDE.md (org-wide facts go to org-profile.md), ask for confirmation, and write only on yes. Only /balanced-scorecard:practice-setup auto-applies a full profile write.

Outputs

Follows plugin CLAUDE.md § Outputs. Natural next branch: /balanced-scorecard:build-strategy-map with confirmed perspective order.