Mattias Skarin has recently posted a comparison of three strategy alignment frameworks – OKRs, Spotify Rhythm and Art of Action Strategy Briefing. I have already posted about these approaches in the past (OKRs, Spotify Rhythm, Directed Opportunism), as well as others, and I liked the way Mattias compared them side by side. In this post I want to add another two into the mix – Four Disciplines of Execution (4DX) and my own TASTE X-Matrix.
I’d recommend going and reading Mattias’s post if you haven’t already so you’re familiar with the context for this one. I’m also assuming that you are familiar with both 4DX and what I call the TASTE X-Matrix as I won’t be explaining them in any detail. Note that when Mattias refers to strategy alignment, I would generally refer to strategy deployment, but I’m pretty sure we mean the same thing!
The Overview
First the summary table. I have kept Mattias’s assessment and added 4DX and the TASTE X-Matrix to the right. I have also added a new Capability (visualisation of status and progress) to the bottom.
| Capabilities | OKRs | Spotify Rhythm | Strategy Briefing | 4DX | TASTE X-Matrix |
| Setting of goals | y | y | y | y | y |
| Measurability | y | y | y | y | y |
| Prioritisation | (y) | y | y | y | y |
| Identifies main effort | y | y | y | ||
| Communicating intent and why | y | y | y | ||
| Transparent “line of sight” to the top | y | y | y | ||
| “Is it achievable” feedback | y | y | y | (y) | |
| Self-assessment of achieved objective | y | y | y | (y) | |
| Situational awareness | y | (y) | |||
| Freedom/boundaries conversation | y | y | (y) | ||
| Has plenty of easy-to-access material in the topic | y | y | |||
| Visualisation of status and progress | y |
Rationale
4DX
I think of 4DX as an advanced version of OKRs so that’s what my comparison is most similar to. The Wildly Important Goal (WIG) sets the goal, and that WIG and the Lead Measures are by definition measurable. Identifying the Lead Measures brings with it prioritisation and the Cadence of Accountability is around identifying the main effort. The Cadence of Accountability is also the forum for “is it achievable” feedback, the self-assessment of the achieved objective, and freedom/boundary conversations. Finally the Compelling Scoreboard is something I find unique to 4DX and the reason I added the new capability of visualising status and progress.
TASTE X-Matrix
Mattias refers to Hosin Kanri as a framework he could have included, and I think what I am calling the TASTE X-Matrix is close to what I think he means by that. I should also add that with the TASTE X-Matrix, I am not just referring to the X-Matrix A3 on its own, but in combination with Backbriefing and Experiment A3s. Given that the Brackbriefing A3 is heavily influenced by Stephen Bungay’s Strategy Briefing work, then my comparison is very similar to that.
With the TASTE X-Matrix, the Aspirations set the goals, Evidence is measurable, Tactics are prioritised in accordance with Strategy, and the True North and Strategy identify the main effort. The whole matrix, with the various correlations, provides transparent line of sight to he top. The remaining capabilities I have marked as (y) are because they are more associated with the Backbriefing and Experiment A3s than they are with the X-Matrix A3.
Undesirable Consequences
I’d probably frame the undesirable consequences more as risks and challenges, and many are shared by all the approaches. With regard to 4DX and the TASTE X-Matrix specifically I would add:
- 4DX’s focus on a single Widly Important Goal (WIG) can drive undesirable behaviour with such a narrow focus. The example in the book about Lance Armstrong hasn’t aged well given what we now know if the way he cheated to achieve his WIG.
- The nature of the TASTE X-Matrix as an A3, along with its related Backbriefing and Experiment A3s, can lead to a focus on the documents rather than the conversations around them. A3s can easily become yet another instruction that get handed down.
Summing Up
I was say that the Pros and Cons of 4DX are more like those of OKRs. 4DX is relatively easy to get started with, and adds some elements which address the communication weaknesses of OKRs.
Similarly, the Pros and Cons of the TASTE X-Matrix are more like those of the Art of Action Strategy Briefing – not surprising considering its influence for Backbriefing. Given it is just my take on the topic, its not surprising that there are not a lot of examples or supporting materials.
Going back to Mattias’s post, what I liked about it was the way it looked at the various approaches from difference perspectives as a way of thinking about strengths and weaknesses, similarities and differences. Hopefully I have added something to that so that, in Mattias’s words you can:
“steal the best ideas and improve […]. Mastery is the craft of continuously upping your game.”