Talk:Strategy map

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Business and Economics WikiProject.
Start	rated as start-Class on the assessment scale
Mid	rated as mid-importance on the assessment scale

Other than the introduction, this article has nothing to do with 'strategy maps'. The remainder of the article goes into a variety of different concepts introduced by Kaplan and Norton, and does not discuss how any of these concepts are related to strategy maps, what a strategy maps looks like, etc. It is suggested that either the remainder of the article be deleted, or the concepts that are described are explicitly described in terms of their connections to strategy maps.

For what it's worth, the previous statement (unsigned) is interesting, but it makes me wonder if the person making this statement is familiar with what a strategy map is. Personally, I find very little wrong with the description of the material in the article. Nickmalik (talk) 07:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] citations

I added a tag requesting citations for the IBM lock-in statement where some detail was provided. Another statement was made that Microsoft 'had been accused of lock in' with no further citation or reference. I have no problem with these statements if a citation is given to the context of the accusation (assuming the intent was to refer to a court case). However, the fact of an accusation is not salient. EVERY company has been accused of things, most unfounded.

I do not consider an accusation to be particularly notable or even useful, without some references to the facts of the case. The IBM reference provided some detail, so I didn't delete it outright, yet. Unless valid citations are made, I'll remove the IBM reference as well.--Nickmalik (talk) 07:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)