Navigating the Framework Jungle – Part 1: Matching Frameworks to Organizational Needs

Enterprise leaders face many challenges when it comes to driving performance and organizational transformation. Developing better operating models, as well as selecting, implementing, and leveraging the right frameworks, is on top of this list. With numerous methodologies (and consultancies trying to sell those) competing for a space in the company’s process landscape —from the traditional Balanced Scorecard to the recent hype of OKRs (Objectives and Key Results)—decision-makers often find themselves lost in what we might call a “framework jungle.”

This creates various challenges. So be assured if any of the following situations sound familiar, you are not alone:

• Different units use different frameworks without any form of integration, collaboration or strategic alignment between them.
• You've implemented a framework that seemed to work for competitors or other role models, only to find it has created more bureaucracy than value in your context.
• You quickly introduced a framework without a rigorous selection process based on factors such as organizational needs or company culture.
• Your organization invested significant resources in the implementation of a steering framework, but teams still can't explain your strategy or how their work contributes to it.
• Despite having a framework in place, different departments continue operating in silos with conflicting priorities and processes.
• What began as a promising approach has devolved into a template-filling exercise with little impact on actual execution.
• Teams view your framework as “yet another management fad” rather than a valuable tool for achieving results.
• Your executive team is frustrated that despite adopting an “agile” framework, your organization does not seem to become more agile or responsive at all.

These challenges reflect the reality in many enterprises, and they illustrate that sustainable framework implementation can be a more complex endeavor than it initially might look like.

This article aims to demystify different management frameworks for planning, monitoring and executing important priorities, and for driving corporate performance. We want to create clarity around what you can realistically expect from frameworks and methodologies, and provide guidance on avoiding common implementation pitfalls.

Whether you are considering OKRs, SAFe, Hoshin Kanri, or Balanced Scorecard, our goal is to help you understand not just the “what” of these frameworks, but also the “why” and “how” that makes them successful.

We'll mainly address four pain points that organizations typically face:

1. Framework confusion: Cutting through the hype to understand what each framework can and cannot deliver.
2. Implementation anxiety: Providing peace of mind by showing that the challenges you experience are part of the process and how they can be productively addressed.
3. Common pitfalls: Identifying and helping you avoid the most frequent mistakes in framework implementation and adoption.‍
4. Cultural alignment: Understanding how frameworks can be (and sometimes have to be, if you want real impact) tools for cultural change, not just process improvements.

There is a healthy trend rising right now—moving from template-focused frameworks with rigid documentation requirements to more principle-based approaches that emphasize adaptability and alignment. This evolution reflects an important truth: The value of any framework lies not in its documentation or prescribed processes, but in the results it delivers through better ways of working. As you navigate this landscape, remember that framework selection is less about finding a perfect methodology and more about matching your organization's unique needs, culture, and strategic challenges with the right principles and practices.

Matching Frameworks to Organizational Needs

The most successful framework implementations start not with the framework itself, but with a clear understanding of the organization's current state and the specific problems it needs to solve (which are usually connected to the higher level goals and vision it pursues).

Assessing Your Organization's Current State, In the Context of Your Ambitions

Before selecting any framework, conduct a thorough assessment of your organization's current strategic planning and execution capabilities. Important questions to consider include:

• What is the quality of our existing strategy? What kind of new behaviors and ways of operating do we need to achieve our strategy? 
• How are our current ways of operating and working different to the ones we require? How can we get from the status quo to the target model? What do we want to keep?
• How effectively does our current approach translate strategy into action? Is our strategy clear, focused, and actionable?
• How well do teams understand our organization's strategic priorities and what it means for them?
• How quickly can our organization adapt to (market) changes?

I remember Dr. Daniela Kudernatsch saying that “it is important to look at what already exists in the company” during our podcast conversation a few years back. She specifically mentioned companies that have been using a Balanced Scorecard for many years and now wanted to understand if Hoshin Kanri could take them any further.

While combining or migrating from one framework to another is a different challenge altogether (one we will also address later on), considerations like these still qualify as starting with what's already working in your organization and evolving from there. This approach often leads to less resistance and more sustainable change than implementing an entirely new approach.

‍

Identifying Core Problems to Solve and Behaviors to Change

Different frameworks excel at solving different problems. Clarify which strategic challenges are most pressing for your organization:

• Is our primary challenge creating strategic focus and alignment?
• Does our organization need to become more customer and outcome focused? 
• Do most of our units struggle balancing operative and strategic (run vs change) work?
• Do we struggle with connecting day-to-day work to strategic objectives?
• Is our organization too slow to respond to market changes?
• Do we lack effective measurement of strategic progress overall?
• Is cross-functional collaboration a key obstacle?

For example, if your primary challenge is creating focus in an organization with too many competing priorities, Hoshin Kanri's emphasis on breakthrough goals might be particularly valuable. As Kudernatsch noted, “Hoshin Kanri's advantage is its consistent alignment with three breakthrough goals. The approach is very consistent and helps many organizations because very often there are far too many goals, especially at the upper level.”

Cultural Considerations and Readiness

Your organizational culture plays a crucial role in determining which framework will be most effective. Consider:

• How hierarchical is our organization? → More hierarchical organizations may struggle with new bottom-up elements in your planning.
• How transparent is our current decision-making? → Many modern frameworks like OKRs require significant transparency to be most effective.
• Do we embrace taking risks and learning quickly? → Concepts like stretch goals and shorter execution cycles work best with an empirical mindset that allows for calculated risks 
• What is our organization's tolerance for ambiguity? → Some frameworks provide more structure than others.
• How strong is our current performance management approach? → Some frameworks require significant changes to existing processes.

This kind of analysis can help organizations to become more autonomous and confident, but also more realistic in how they choose and implement or change a framework. Commercial frameworks like SAFe, for example, capitalize on the fact that many established businesses prefer risk avoidance and well-defined roles and rules over everything else. Accordingly, SAFe provides plenty of guardrails and guidance (some say bureaucracy), which on the one hand helps these companies to easier start their transformation journey, but on the other hand, can also work against the principles of more autonomous teams and adaptiveness. 

Many organizations make the mistake of trying to implement a framework that conflicts with their current culture without addressing the underlying cultural issues, but expecting things to just change within months. At the same time, “we don't have the culture for [Framework X]” is a common objection we hear.

However, these perspectives miss a simple yet important insight: frameworks can be powerful tools for cultural change, not just for process improvements. Rather than waiting for your culture to evolve before implementing a framework, the framework itself can be the catalyst for a guided and well-structured transformation.

As system theorist Richard Buckminster Fuller observed, “If you want to teach people a new way of thinking, don't bother trying to teach them. Instead, give them a tool, the use of which will lead to new ways of thinking.”

Management frameworks can be exactly that kind of tool. They can, for example, help teams understand who their customers are and what needs they have—but also let them experience how little they might know about customers at this point and how long their way is to getting access to relevant data on it. It starts with acknowledging the situation as an issue that shall be addressed. The right framework, implemented the right way, can create a mirror that allows organizations to identify the gaps between current and aspired behaviors. It can also enable discussions about the underlying principles and culture that are supposed to develop but which also make the change difficult initially. In cyclical retrospectives, corporate development can facilitate this process and help the organization to deduce key measures and initiatives from the identified gaps, while growing awareness of the underlying cultural changes. This can address cultural challenges in a very constructive, tangible and iterative way through the process itself, rather than through abstract discussions and training about cultural change.

Defining Future Working Principles

Perhaps the most important consideration is how your organization needs to work in the future, in the context of your strategic ambitions and the environment it operates in. Rather than focusing on specific practices (like “two-week sprints and three-month cycles”—those can be later deduced), identify the core principles that should guide your ways of working first:

• Do we need to become more customer-centric?
• Should our approach be more iterative and experimental?
• Is cross-functional collaboration essential to our success?
• Do we have to increase transparency and accountability?‍
• But also questions like: Do we really have to become more agile, and what does it mean for us? Do all teams have to change in the same direction and intensity?

These principles should drive your framework selection. For example, if becoming more customer-centric is a key priority, you might lean toward frameworks that emphasize customer value and outcomes in the planning (templates and principles), rather than internal activities.

When discussing and selecting these core principles (which are essentially defined by your new operating model), make sure to always define the purpose and context of a principle, too. Why do we have to become more customer-centric? How does this support our organization’s strategy, and why does our market environment need us to change now? Why are we not customer-centric enough today? This applies especially for those that read like timeless values everybody can embrace. As a client of ours put it: “A properly introduced framework also provides a clear understanding of WHY we want to work based on these principles—creating a self-reinforcing feedback loop.”

Successfully navigating the framework jungle begins with a thorough understanding of your organization's unique characteristics (like culture), requirements, and strategic challenges—in the context of your vision, market environment and strategy.

The process of matching frameworks to organizational needs is not about finding a universally “best” methodology, but rather identifying which approach—or combination of approaches—will best address your organization’s status quo and ambitions specifically.

Framework Selection Principles

When assessing which framework might best suit your organization, consider these guiding principles:

1. Start with Organizational Self-Awareness
   Conduct an honest assessment of not just your strategy and vision, but also of your current state, including strengths, weaknesses, and cultural characteristics. The most effective framework implementation builds on what's already working while addressing specific gaps.
2. Prioritize Problems and Behaviors to Address
   Different frameworks excel at solving different problems. Clarify whether your primary challenges relate to strategic focus, execution velocity, cross-functional collaboration, or other areas, and select accordingly.
3. Consider Cultural Compatibility and Change
   Recognize that frameworks both reflect and shape culture. Choose approaches that either align with your existing culture or can help drive the specific cultural changes you seek.
4. Embrace Principles Over Prescriptions
   Focus on understanding the core principles behind a framework rather than rigidly following prescribed templates. This mindset allows for necessary adaptation to your context.‍
5. Evaluate Readiness and Expectations Honestly
   Be realistic about your organization's readiness and the time it will need for different approaches. Some frameworks require significant cultural prerequisites or capability development to be successful.

Looking Ahead

In the following parts of this series, we'll explore different framework categories and how organizations can effectively implement their chosen frameworks, avoid common pitfalls, and combine elements from different approaches to create custom solutions that best meet their needs.

As you reflect on your organization's framework needs, remember that the selection process itself can be valuable—creating leadership alignment and buy-in for the change, prompting important discussions about how your organization needs to work, what you're trying to achieve, and how you'll measure success. These conversations lay the groundwork for more effective strategy execution, regardless of which specific framework you ultimately adopt.

‍