It is terrific to see the Strategy Pyramid gaining so much traction more than 13 years after it was developed in late 2011. It is also heartening to see the myriad of conversations happening around the importance of strategy.
This has inspired me to take a look back at how the model first came about. A summary of this process is below:
The McGuinness Institute Strategy Pyramid
Source: McGuinness Institute. (February 2012). Project 2058: Report 9 – Science Embraced: Government-funded Science under
the Microscope, p. 3. Retrieved 9 January 2025 from https://www.mcguinnessinstitute.org/publications/project-2058-reports/
In July 2010, I attended a course, Driving Corporate Performance: Aligning Scorecards, Systems, and Strategy, run by R. S. Kaplan et al., looking for a simple lens to apply to the Institute’s strategy work and to use in workshops. I was searching for a simple model that would ensure our strategy work:
- focused on alignment and execution;
- would take participants through three stages (purpose, strategy and execution); and
- could be applied to government (as well as business).
I couldn’t find any models that fit all three criteria and so in late 2011, I set out to undertake research and develop my own.
Research into strategy was an essential part of the Strategy Pyramid’s development. Key reading that influenced my thinking included books and articles by R. S. Kaplan and D. P. Norton (who emphasised the importance of linking execution to strategy, and of course strategy maps); Henry Mintzberg’s book The Structuring of Organisations; and Robert Simons’ Seven Strategy Questions: A Simple Approach for Better Execution (great questions). There are a number of other thoughts, notes and ideas I gathered over that time, so the phrase ‘standing on the shoulders of giants’ is very appropriate when looking at the history of the Strategy Pyramid.
The Balanced Scorecard
Source: Kaplan, R. S and David P. Norton. (2004). Strategy Maps: Converting Intangible Assets into Tangible Outcomes. Boston: Harvard Business School, p. 33.
In particular, I found Figure 2.2 in Kaplan and Norton’s 2004 book Strategy Maps: Converting Intangible Assets into Tangible Outcomes a good starting point.
The following lists the main changes I made to this diagram and why:
- Moved the position of ‘strategy map’ as I thought it related more to execution than strategy.
- Removed strategy, balanced scorecard, personal objectives and strategic outcomes as they added unnecessary confusion and complexity.
- Removed the corporate-focused terminology.
- Added ‘strategic intent’. The term ‘strategic intent’ probably originated from Gary Hamel and C.K. Prahalad’s 2005 article of the same name; however, by 2011 it was common language.
- Added ‘drivers’ and ‘enablers’. The terms probably came, or at least became cemented in my thinking as a result of attending four World Futures Society conferences: Washington, D.C. (2008); Chicago (2009); Boston (2010); and Vancouver (2011). For example, the topic of the 2011 conference was Moving From Vision to Action and I was reading the conference book at this time (edited by Cynthia G Wagner).
- Added ‘performance indicators’ (a bow to Henry Mintzberg).
- Added questions under each layer (a bow to Robert Simons).
- Called the model the Strategy Pyramid. Interestingly we discussed if the pyramid should be upside down; however, the Strategy Pyramid name stuck. Instead of flipping the shape, we emphasised the importance of the top by moving from black to light grey.
- Added the ‘magic three’: purpose, strategy and execution. This enabled us to run three sessions, then one last session to stress test a strategy for alignment.
The Institute has used the Strategy Pyramid since 2012. Links to our early work can be found at https://www.mcguinnessinstitute.org/publications/project-2058-reports. Check out Report 9 (2012), which contains the Strategy Pyramid, and Report 13 (2013), which contains strategy maps. Kaplan’s course continues to influence our work.
Again, thank you to Alan (AJ) Silber for emphasising these types of strategy tools and models; if there was ever a time that we should revisit strategy and the linking of purpose to execution – it is now! Thanks also to Nick Babich and others who have given this model a platform.