define-perspectives

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.