The tools share basic strategy execution functionality. What makes them different is the approach to building strategy architecture: BSC Designer starts with hierarchical decomposition; ClearPoint starts with a network of distinct strategic objects.
Last reviewed:
A Simple Stress Test: Remove All the Links
Let’s imagine that, in a strategy defined by both of these tools, all manually defined links were removed.
In BSC Designer, the hierarchy of objectives, indicators, and initiatives would still remain. In most cases, calculation logic based on that hierarchy would not be affected.
In ClearPoint, the strategy elements1 would still exist, but the strategy model would lose much of its coherence.
This experiment illustrates a difference between the two platforms. In BSC Designer, structure is inherited from the hierarchy. In ClearPoint, structure depends on how separate strategy elements are connected.
Hierarchy vs. Network
While the starting point might be different, the final strategy design is quite similar. Both platforms eventually support hierarchy and network-style cross-linking, but they get there from different starting points.
| BSC Designer | ClearPoint |
|---|---|
| Starts with a hierarchy. | Starts with distinct element types. |
| Elements gain meaning from their position in the hierarchy. | Elements gain meaning from their type and relationships. |
| Additional links extend the hierarchy. | Links create the strategic network. |
The first design question in BSC Designer is:
Where does this element belong?
The first design question in ClearPoint is:
What kind of element is this, and what should it be linked to?
What This Means in Practice
In a hierarchy-first model, more design effort goes into defining the structure upfront. This can make accountability and performance aggregation clearer, especially when the organization needs to cascade strategy across departments.
The trade-off is that cross-functional themes may require additional links or shared scorecards.
In a network model, more design effort goes into defining relationships between strategy objects: which measures support which objectives, which initiatives contribute to which priorities, which owners are responsible, and which objects should appear together in reports. This supports cross-functional alignment well.
The trade-off is that the model requires stronger governance: to avoid duplication across the strategy network, strategists need clear naming, ownership, and update rules.
Example: The Same Objective in Both Tools
To make the difference more concrete, let’s use a specific objective.
Our objective is:
- Improve enterprise customer retention.
This is supported by:
- Better customer onboarding.
- Faster enterprise support.
- Greater adoption of enterprise product features.
How This Looks in BSC Designer
In BSC Designer, we would first place the objective within a scorecard hierarchy. For example, it might belong under the Customer perspective.
Then we would find the indicators to quantify it and decide how those indicators contribute to the objective.
We could also extend the default connection that the objective has obtained through its position in the hierarchy with cross-links to other items within this scorecard or other scorecards.
How This Looks in ClearPoint
In ClearPoint, we would first create distinct strategic elements: objective, measure, and initiative. We would then link them together.
Measures and initiatives would be linked to an objective and later appear with it in the corresponding scorecard view.
When BSC Designer Is a Strong Alternative to ClearPoint
BSC Designer is a strong ClearPoint alternative when the main challenge is building a traceable performance architecture 2.
This matters when an organization needs to define how strategy is decomposed into objectives and sub-goals, which KPIs belong under each objective, how performance rolls up, how departmental scorecards contribute to corporate performance, and which relationships should affect calculation rather than provide context only.
When ClearPoint Is the Stronger Fit
ClearPoint is stronger when the main challenge is coordinating strategy execution across many related objects, owners, reports, and review cycles.
This matters when an organization needs to maintain relationships between objectives, measures, and initiatives; keep strategy objects visible across reports; and manage execution updates without forcing everything into a single decomposition hierarchy.
Final Thoughts
Both platforms can manage basic strategy components and workflows:
- As a rule of thumb, BSC Designer is the better fit when the organization needs a disciplined cascading model with KPI roll-ups, scorecard ownership, and traceability from corporate goals to departmental performance.
- ClearPoint is the better fit when the organization needs cross-functional visibility for objectives, measures, initiatives, reports, and management review cycles without forcing everything into a single hierarchy.
The choice depends on which structure better matches the organization’s existing way of designing and maintaining strategy. For a broader view of strategy execution platforms and the selection criteria behind them, see our comparison of strategy execution software.
This comparison reflects my best effort to describe the difference between the two platforms objectively. At the same time, my perspective is shaped mostly by helping clients of BSC Designer, so I may have missed something important about how ClearPoint sees this distinction. I would welcome ClearPoint’s own published view on the difference between the two platforms.
- Managing Elements, ClearPoint Strategy, 2023, ClearPoint Strategy ↩
- Strategy Implementation System: Cascading Through Balanced Scorecards, BSC Designer, 2024 ↩
Alexis Savkin is a Strategy Architect and founder of BSC Designer, a strategy execution software platform with the Balanced Scorecard at its core. He helps organizations translate strategy into measurable objectives, KPIs, and initiatives. Alexis is the creator of the Strategy Execution Canvas, the author of 100+ articles on strategy and performance measurement, and a regular speaker.