I’ve been doing some more research into the history and origins of the X-Matrix recently. In the process, I came across a post by Christopher Roser which includes some criticism of the format. There are some valid points, although I would call them risks rather than flaws. Like the cut-throat razor in the picture, there are risks and dangers. However, when used well there are rewards and benefits. I have written plenty of posts which have an X-Matrix tag. One thing I haven’t done is be explicit about these X-Matrix concerns.
The Document
The X-Matrix is just an A3 document. It’s a template which is designed to distil all the key elements of a transformation onto a single page. It’s not intended to be a comprehensive document (or even supplement a set of comprehensive documentation). Nor is it intended to be handed down as instructions and mandates telling people what to do.
In other words:
It’s the memory of what was said and felt that creates alignment, not the final piece of paper.
Thomas L. Jackson: Hoshin Kanri for the Lean Enterprise
To address this X-Matrix concern, the document should be part of a Catchball process, where people have the chance to contribute and give feedback on its content.
The Metrics
The metrics (Aspirations and Evidence in the TASTE framework) are intended to be useful indicators of progress and success for a transformation. While they provide focus and feedback, they are not there to be used as targets. Treating the metrics as the primary goal risks succumbing to Goodhart’s Law, or as it is most commonly quoted:
When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.
Marilyn Strathern
To address this X-Matrix concern, Catchball again is key to ensure that the intent is the focus rather than the metrics. Backbriefing can be a great way of achieving this.
The Intricacy
The amount of information and detail on the X-Matrix can be overwhelming. Asking people to not only identify the various elements (True North, Aspirations, Strategies, Tactics and Evidence) but also agree on the correlation, can be daunting.
To address this X-Matrix concern, as I mentioned in a previous post on X-Matrix lessons, it’s sometimes better to use the framework implicitly. Thus, rather than forcing the format on people which may create resistance, introduce the ideas more gradually where appropriate. In other words, focus on the content and the conversations before the structure and the composition. This links back to the quote above regarding the X-Matrix as a document.
I should note that I have already simplified the template with my TASTE X-Matrix. You will notice from the example from Christopher Roser’s post, as well as other examples online, that I have removed the Teams section. The reasons for this are also related to some of Christopher’s other concerns, and deserve a future post of their own!
Thus, I would say that while I have a strong bias towards the X-Matrix, I would agree that it is neither necessary nor sufficient. However, despite these X-Matrix concerns, it can be a powerful approach to engaging people in conversations and creating alignment when used well. The X-Matrix concerns are perfectly valid but are not enough to discard it completely.