Chapter 18. False Maps
Most organisations use maps — road maps, process maps, customer journey maps etc. — but don’t find them as useful as spreadsheets or presentations. The reason is that these aren’t real maps. They may be called maps, they may even look like maps, but they lack the core functionality of real maps.
Let’s explain by revisiting the scenario from chapter 11:
You’re in an unfamiliar city where you don’t speak the language. You need to get from your hotel to a restaurant to meet a business client, but you have no idea how to get there. You ask the friendly, multilingual hotel receptionist for help and they hand you a map.
Fig.68: A ‘Map’ Of The Route: Your Hotel To The Restaurant
This ‘map’ has a few essential characteristics of real maps:[1]
- It’s visual — meaning you can quickly scan all of it.
- It’s context-specific — it seems to describe the city you’re in.
- It includes some relevant components — like your hotel and the restaurant.
However, it’s missing some other essential characteristics:
- It has no anchor or compass — meaning you don’t know which direction to head in from your hotel.
- Positioning is vague — where are these components relative to each other — are they far apart?
- Movement is unclear — do you just need to walk in a straight line past the coffee shop and plaza?
This is the issue with false maps — they may look like real maps, but they lack the essential characteristics that make maps powerful tools for navigating uncertain spaces, whether an unfamiliar city or a changing business Landscape. Real maps help us develop situational awareness — the ability to understand the wider Landscape, anticipate how it might change, and identify where our options for action, or movement, are.
Before we explore how real maps can help us gain situational awareness, let’s examine six of the most common ‘false maps’ in business and show how they’re failing you:
- Strategy maps
- Mind maps
- Info-graphic maps
- Roadmaps
- System maps
- Process maps
1. Strategy Maps
In a September 2000 Harvard Business Review article, Kaplan & Norton (of ‘Balanced Scorecard’ fame) asked businesses: “Having Trouble with Your Strategy? Then Map It”:
“Imagine that you are a general taking your troops into foreign territory. Obviously, you would need detailed maps showing the important towns and villages, the surrounding landscape, key structures like bridges and tunnels, and the roads and highways that traverse the region. Without such information, you couldn’t communicate your campaign strategy to your field officers and the rest of your troops.
Unfortunately, many top executives are trying to do just that. When attempting to implement their business strategies, they give employees only limited descriptions of what they should do and why those tasks are important. Without clearer and more detailed information, it’s no wonder that many companies have failed in executing their strategies. After all, how can people carry out a plan that they don’t fully understand?”
This was the map Kaplan & Norton presented:
Fig.69: The Balanced Scorecard Strategy Map. HBR (Sep 2000)
Let’s assess this against the six essential characteristics of real maps outlined in chapter 14:[2]
- It’s visual, but you need time to read it to figure out what it’s actually conveying.
- It shows components, like ‘employee competencies’, ‘technology’ and ‘corporate culture’
- However, it doesn’t show the position of these components in a meaningful way. They’re clustered at the bottom, so we can’t say if they’re foundational to the strategy or incidental to it, (being located far from the anchor of this map — “improving shareholder value” — may mean they’re less important).
- Without an agreed understanding of position, it’s hard to use this map to identify strategic moves.
Strategy is all about making moves to exploit conditions in a Landscape to your advantage, just like Themistocles sending the Spartans to ambush the Persians at Thermopylae, buying the Greek states time to mobilise their armies. But can you imagine trying to convince King Leonidas to lead his men on a suicide mission to Thermopylae with this map?
Kaplan & Norton urged companies to provide “clearer and more detailed information” to communicate strategies better and drive execution. The problem is, their strategy map isn’t a real map at all. It’s generic, as each ‘map’ would follow the same structure, regardless of context. It has an anchor (”shareholder value”) but fails to consider other equally relevant anchors, like customer needs, even though Kaplan & Norton admit that, “the core of any business strategy is the customer value proposition”.
Their ‘strategy map’ presents a fixed set of activities — ‘operational excellence’, ‘customer intimacy’ and ‘product leadership’ on the on the right of the map (see fig.69) — but no insight into what these components actually involve or how to deliver them better than rivals. We’re left with the impression that, if we could just squeeze the complex reality of our business Landscape into these neat and tidy boxes, then a strategy will emerge. But this is like giving mayors in Europe the “map of every European city” meme (see fig.70) and asking them to plan the future development of their city with it. At first, they might recognise familiar features, but they’d soon realise that a generic map is useless for guiding us to make better decisions.
This is a false map.
Fig.70: “Map of Every European City” by Malachi Ray Reopen (2018)
Strategy Maps and the six essential characteristics of real maps
Visual NO
Context-specific NO
Components YES
Anchor PARTIAL
Position NO
Movement NO
2. Mind Maps
Mind maps are useful for listing relevant components and describing them in detail. The mind map below of the Persian invasion of Greece in 480 BCE[3] outlines, among other things, the ‘Greek options’ for responding to this invasion (bottom left). However, real maps are meant to show the bigger picture, allowing us to explore better options for action. A mind map fails entirely in this task — let’s explore why.
Fig.71: Mind Map Of Persia’s Invasion Of Greece (480 BCE)
Maps are meant to be visual tools that enable us to scan a Landscape in seconds. However, the mind map above requires significantly more time to process before we can understand the bigger picture. Although it’s context-specific — it refers to the Persian invasion of Greece (rather than some other conflict) and provides lots of information (Xerxes’ motivations, Persian strengths and weaknesses, Greek options for action) — it presents only a partial and selective story.
The ‘Greek options’ appear to be the author’s conclusions, but we can’t challenge the assumptions behind these recommendations or explore better alternatives. We’re forced to choose from the options presented, hoping they’re comprehensive and well thought-through. If you were Themistocles, you’d find this deeply unsatisfactory, as it limits your ability to identify the unorthodox moves that could tip the situation in your favour — which is the essence of strategic thinking.
While the mind map describes various components, such as physical features (the vale, the isthmus, the pass at Thermopylae) and controllable assets (armies and navies), it lacks an anchor — a way to locate us in this Landscape and understand what surrounds us. This makes the position of components in the mind map meaningless — moving anything doesn’t change our understanding of the situation. For example, let’s move the ‘Persian navy’ on this mind map (see fig.72):
Fig.72: Moving The ‘Persian Navy’
Does moving the ‘Persian navy’ from one position to another change the situation? The answer is no — not in any meaningful way. It’s a cosmetic change. In contrast, if we change the position of the Persian navy on a real map — showing it moving from the South (rather than the North) — would that change the situation?
Fig.73: The Persian Navy Attacking From The South
The answer is yes. The Persian navy moving on Athens from the South rather than from the North would have meant Themistocles faced a very different situation. This illustrates the importance of understanding movement in a situation and strategic thinkers are aware of this. That’s why Themistocles used a real map to track Persia’s moves and develop counter-moves to oppose them — sending the Athenian navy North to block the Straits of Artemisium — effectively using the Landscape as a force multiplier.[4] A mind-map would have been useless in this situation, as they’re ‘false maps’ and limited for strategic thinking.
Mind Maps and the six essential characteristics of real maps:
Visual NO
Context-specific YES
Components YES
Anchor NO
Position NO
Movement NO
3. Infographic Maps
In recent years, infographics have become popular in the business world. They grab the attention of people inundated with information, since the human brain can process visual information far quicker than text. Some of these graphics, like this one from Deloitte (see fig.74) may even look like maps, with components laid out visually, giving them a sense of familiarity. Yet these are another example of ‘false maps’.
Fig.74: The Agile Landscape (2017)
Deloitte’s infographic is context-specific, as it shows a specific Landscape — “The Agile Landscape”. However, it lacks an anchor — a consistent reference point that would allow us to move confidently through this space. The absence of an anchor means there is no clear logic to the position of components. For example, if we’re interested in ‘Design Thinking’ (red line starting on the left), do we start with a ‘Focal Question’ and proceed through every component along this line until we get to ’Story Mapping’? Or is there some other path we can take? The same ambiguity applies to any component on this ‘map’ — where do we start, which direction should we head in, and how will we know when we’ve reached our destination?
That these questions remain unanswered on Deloitte’s ‘map’ is likely a feature, not a bug. Perhaps we’re meant to be confused, so we’ll call the consultants who created this and ask for guidance. However, this defeats the purpose of a map, which is to enable us to find our way in an unfamiliar Landscape.
For anyone who knows London (or any city with a metro system), Deloitte’s infographic may feel familiar. That’s because it’s based on the famous London Underground map, originally designed by Harry Beck in 1931 (see fig.75). Beck’s map is a real map as it has all six essential characteristics: It’s a visual representation of a context-specific space (London’s Underground system); it has an anchor — the system itself (we can only travel along its tracks); and this means the position of components (stations) has a discernible logic (station X is north of station Y); so we can use this map to help us move through this space. For instance, to go from Wimbledon (bottom of the green line) to Victoria north of the river, we must pass through eleven stations and may have to change lines at Earl’s Court.
Fig.75: Harry Beck’s London Underground Map (1931)
Beck’s map has been so useful that its design is still used in London today (see fig.76), as it fulfils a key purpose: helping millions of people navigate their way around the city, including huge numbers of tourists who may be unfamiliar with the place. This is the power of a real map. Deloitte’s ‘Agile Landscape’ infographic may have drawn inspiration from Beck’s map, but it’s a ‘false map’ and no one has ever really used it.
Fig.76: The London Tube Map (2023)
Infographics and the six essential characteristics of real maps:
Visual YES
Context-specific YES
Components YES
Anchor NO
Position NO
Movement NO
4. Roadmaps
Talk to a business person about maps and they’ll often start thinking about roadmaps. So, let’s explore these and ask the same question — are these ‘real maps’ or ‘false maps’?
Roadmaps are popular for planning major investments or product rollouts because they share some characteristics of real maps, which makes them useful: they’re visual and context-specific (focused on a particular project that we can scan quickly), and they show relevant components (the assets we control). However, roadmaps also have some serious shortcomings.
Fig.77: A Typical Roadmap
The main flaw of roadmaps is that they use time as an anchor — showing what should happen and when. This is problematic because the future is uncertain. Predicting how far along components will be in six months, a year or longer is mostly guesswork or wishful thinking since we’re not in control of all the variables that could affect the situation. Think back to the early 2020 — could you have predicted even half of the major changes that followed? Many well-laid plans with detailed roadmaps were derailed by unforeseen variables.
If you plan to build a bridge you can calculate how much material you need, how many people, how long it might take, and the cost. You can also be confident that a rival won’t build a better bridge before you in the same location, making yours redundant. In such non-competitive situations, where you control most (but not all)[5] variables, a roadmap can be useful. However, in competitive environments rivals are continually launching new products that shape customer expectations and new technologies emerge that transform how we operate. In these situations, relying on a roadmap created in the past — when you had no knowledge of these changes — can lead to failure. It’s like a chess player deciding all their moves before the game starts, then stubbornly refusing to adapt as their opponent makes unexpected moves. Defeat becomes inevitable.
Roadmaps can be useful in competitive situations for getting initial agreement on funding or buy in from a team for a journey your embarking on. However, roadmaps become dangerous when people stick to them rigidly and fail to ‘learn as they go’. Time is an unreliable anchor, meaning key components won’t be where you thought they’d be, which will undermine the moves you planned. This is why roadmaps are ‘false maps’.
Roadmaps and the six essential characteristics of real maps:
Visual YES
Context-specific YES
Components YES
Anchor UNRELIABLE
Position UNRELIABLE
Movement UNRELIABLE
5. System Maps
System maps describe the connections between activities (things we do) and knowledge (things we know). These relationships can be causal — like ‘solar energy’ being created by ‘the sun’ — or correlational, as with ‘nuclear fusion’ and ‘coal’ both being ‘energy sources’ (see fig.78). System maps are often used to show network interdependencies, such as in IT architecture or in larger systems, like a national electricity grid.
Fig.78: System Map Of An Electricity Grid
System maps are effective for visualising complicated systems, allowing us to scan the entire system quickly and understand the relationships between components. These can include things we know, like ‘chemical reactions’ enabling ‘chemical energy’, or assets we control, like ‘generators’, which need ‘energy sources, like ‘oil and gas’, ‘coal’, or ‘nuclear fusion’.
The system map in fig.78 is also context-specific, showing us an electricity grid rather than another network. It also has an anchor — the grid itself — which acts as a focal point. We can now understand what’s needed to provide ‘power’: the grid needs ‘sources’ of energy like ‘solar’, ‘chemical’ or ‘mechanical motion’ and power is measured in ‘kilowatts’.
However, despite their usefulness, system maps are also ‘false maps’.
Here’s why.
If we moved one of the components — for example, ‘the sun’ (see fig.79) — would this change the meaning of the system map?
Fig.79: Moving A Component (‘The Sun’) On A System Map
The answer is no. The relationship between ‘solar energy’ and ‘the sun’ stays the same no matter where we move these components, because position has no meaning on a system map.
In contrast, if we move a component on a real map — such as moving ‘Thermopylae’ from the North to South, (next to Sparta at the bottom of the map in fig.80) — this would significantly change the meaning of the map, with serious consequences, (e.g. Themistocles couldn’t use the narrow pass at Thermopylae as a force multiplier to hold back the Persian invasion). This is because space has meaning on a real map — moving something changes the entire meaning of the map.
But on a system map, space has no meaning — moving a component changes nothing of strategic significance. This makes system maps ‘false maps’ and limits their usefulness for strategic decision-making, where success depends on understanding how moves in a given Landscape can help you achieve objectives.
Fig.80: Moving A Component (‘Thermopylae’) On A Real Map
System Maps and the six essential characteristics of real maps:
Visual YES
Context-specific YES
Components YES
Anchor YES
Position NO
Movement NO
6. Process Maps
The final ‘map’ we’ll look at, widely used in business, is the ‘process map’. These share many essential characteristics of real maps: they’re visual representations of a context-specific space; they have an anchor, (in fig.81, the ‘order generated’ by a customer); they show key components in that process; and — thanks to the anchor — we can see their position (e.g. after an ‘order is generated’ it’s ‘completed’ by sales, then ‘received’ by the credit & invoicing team who ‘check the credit’ of the customer, and so on.). This is an effective way of showing us how a customer order moves through this process.
However, process maps don’t show us how the process itself is evolving, which significantly limits their value as a strategic tool. Let’s explain with an example.
Fig.81: Typical Process Map
Below (fig.82) is a map of the Moscow Metro in 2010. Like the London Underground map (see fig.76) it’s a real map: it’s visual (we can quickly see the entire system); context-specific (it’s Moscow, Paris); shows relevant components (Metro lines and stations); and has an anchor (the system itself, along which trains move on fixed routes). This enables us to describe the position of components in a meaningful way — Park Kultury is seven stops northbound on the red line. Therefore, we have a consistent way to describe movement — to reach to Park Kultury from Sportivnaya, for example, requires travelling two stations North on the red line.
Fig.82: Moscow Metro Map (2010)
Yet, the Moscow Metro has continued to evolve (fig.83). If you tried to navigate your way around in 2020 with the 2010 map you’d have quickly got confused, as that map is no longer a useful representation of reality.
Fig.83: Moscow Metro Map (2020)
And the Moscow Metro continues to evolve. The map in fig.84 shows how the system is expected to look in 2030. This map will help us move around the Moscow Metro of the future, but we can also use it now to anticipate how this Landscape will change. This will allows us identify future moves — for example, as a retailer we could use it to decide where to open new stores near future metro stops.
Fig.84: Planned Moscow Metro Map (2030)
The purpose of a map is to help us navigate an unknown space, so it must show how that space is changing if it’s to be useful. If large-scale infrastructure like a Metro evolves this quickly, imagine how fast your business processes are changing in response to new technologies, practices, customer needs and competitive pressures. A map that fails to show this — like a process map — it’s a ‘false map’ as it won’t help you navigate your Landscape effectively.
Process Maps and the six essential characteristics of real maps:
Visual YES
Context-specific YES
Components YES
Anchor YES
Position YES
Movement ONLY PARTLY
Conclusion
While maps may seem widespread in the business world, none of what people call maps are real maps, as they all lack one or more of the six essential characteristics. And without real maps, business are blind to the Landscape they’re operating in, unable to make informed moves as they can’t anticipate how action will change the situation. They’re reduced to copying the past moves of others — often labelled ‘best practices’ — in hope these work universally, despite differing contexts. Few businesses discover unique moves that will give them a competitive edge, which is why there are so few ‘live players’[6] in the business world.
Successful military leaders wouldn’t conduct a campaign without maps of the Landscape they’ll be fighting in; explorers don’t set off to unknown destinations without securing the best maps they can lay their hands on; hotel receptionists give out maps to tourists to help them find their way around an unfamiliar Landscape; football managers use a map of their Landscape (the pitch) to show players where to make runs and passes; and we use maps on daily basis to get around our towns and cities faster. But the business world stands out as one of the few places where real maps are rarely used. Therefore, those that adopt maps will an advantage as they’ll be able to out-think and out-move rivals who can only play a game of following the leader.
Let’s look at how that works in practice by mapping an entire industry in the next chapter.
1 See chapter fourteen — Maps are Weapons
2 See chapter fourteen — Maps are Weapons
3 See chapter thirteen — Landscapes as Force Multipliers
4 See chapter twelve — The Hierarchy of Strategic Thinking
5 Global disruptions forcing the cost of materials up; transport delays preventing work starting on time; inclement weather, accidents, worker strikes shutting down construction sites etc.
(Next chapter) Chapter 19 —Mapping An Industry
