Introducing the Order of the X-Matrix

An Order of the British Empire Medal used as a fun reference to the Order of the X-Matrix.

This isn’t an announcement of a new certification or secret society! Rather, the Order of the X-Matrix is the way that I use it in practice. The order in which I introduce the X-Matrix is TASTE first, followed by the Correlations. However, when I work with a group to populate an X-Matrix, I work through it in a slightly different order.

The Order of the X-Matrix

This is the order I use in practice, as shown in the picture below.

  1. True North
  2. Aspirations
  3. Strategies
  4. Correlations of Strategies to Aspirations
  5. Evidence
  6. Correlations of Evidence to Aspirations
  7. Tactics
  8. Correlations of Tactics to Strategies
  9. Correlations of Tactics to Evidence

There are several reasons for doing this.

Avoiding Confirmation Bias

This is specifically about switching the order of Tactics and Evidence. The risk of discussing Tactics before Evidence is twofold. Firstly, it is easy to jump to the easy or obvious Tactics that have already been previously thought of. This reduces potential creativity and diversity. Secondly, the Evidence that is identified is biased towards confirming that those Tactics are working. In other words, they are specific to those Tactics.

Identifying the Evidence first leads to discussing it relative to the Strategies. Thus the Evidence is more about confirming the Strategies than the Tactics. That then opens up a wider discussion of the Tactics. The conversation becomes about exploring what Tactics might generate the Evidence, rather than what Evidence might validate the Tactics.

This is similar to Agendashift’s Meaning, Measure Method pattern. Strategy provides the meaning, Evidence provides the Measure, and Tactics provide the Method.

Quicker Feedback

By starting to work through the correlations at the first opportunity, the feedback from the discussion and debate happens sooner. Thus, any mismatch or misunderstanding of the correlations between Aspirations and Strategies can be identified quickly. As a result, the group is not wasting time working through the rest of the X-Matrix based on flawed initial assumptions or premises.

Earlier Understanding

Starting on the correlations early also helps participants understand how the X-Matrix works sooner rather than later. The format can appear too complicated and confusing. However, once people grasp the concept through this early hands-on experience, the exercise becomes much more tangible and productive.

Increased Engagement

Finally, quick feedback and early understanding generate increased engagement. I have had participants get genuinely excited by format, and the value it brings. This increased engagement makes the whole exercise much more meaningful, significantly improving the overall outcomes as a result.

This Order of the X-Matrix is how I prefer to run a workshop at the moment. Even with this order, it is still not a purely linear exercise. The feedback, understanding and engagement tend to mean that there is also an iterative nature to the process. As the discussion evolves, the generation of new learning and insights means that previous elements are revisited and the whole X-Matric is further improved.

Three Quick Tips for Better X-Matrix Communication

A lightbulb sitting on top of a book with some of the pages folded.  Chosen to represent storytelling shedding a light on X-Matrix communication.
Reading enlightens – Art seen at Guruke in Córdoba, Spain.

One of the challenges of the X-Matrix is that it can be initially confusing for people. Their eyes can glaze over when it is presented on its own. I’ve seen various attempts to try and address this with different X-Matrix flavours. However, I don’t think the format is the problem. These three tips are how I now approach the challenge of X-Matrix communication.

Use the X-Matrix for collaboration

The X-Matrix’s core strength is as a collaboration framework. When I work through the format, step by step, people intuitively pick it up as they go. When people are working through the process of completing one, they are building it up piece by piece. It also makes more sense because they are exploring their context and discussing their content.

However, there is a huge amount of information on an X-Matrix. It often takes many hours or days to come to the final coherent and consented content. People cannot be realistically expected to take in all this information in one go. Therefore, while it remains a great tool for collaboration, another approach to X-Matrix communication is required.

Only communicate one part of the X-Matrix at a time

The story behind why and how it was created is missing from the raw X-Matrix. One of my favourite quotes about A3s is that,

“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

Thus when addressing the challenge of X-Matrix communication, we want to tell that story and describe those memories.

Building up the X-Matrix, one element at a time helps introduce the thinking behind it. This allows people to understand the rationale and relationships more gradually. In today’s world of PowerPoint and video calls, this generally means spreading out the X-Matrix over several slides of a presentation. Each slide might focus on a different part of TASTE, or a different set of correlations. Equally, highlighting only some aspects of the X-Matrix, while hiding others, may also be appropriate if that prevents people from being confused or overwhelmed.

Add clarifying details when you communicate

The advantage of spreading out the X-Matrix communication over many slides like this is that it opens up more possibilities. The story can be complemented with additional detail and colour. For example, describing the background of the business landscape. Visualisation techniques and exercises from Agendashift can be useful here. I have previously blogged about Option Orientation with Reverse Wardley Mapping as one example. Alternatively, it could be adding more detail, such as specifics around people, scope or metrics and dashboards.

This also opens up the possibility of using alternative visualisation techniques which might enhance the story. Again, I have previously blogged about using Sankey Diagrams. Having said that, this may prove to be a different acquired taste. I’ve found some people find Sankey Diagrams useful, while others still prefer a simple table.

However, having a single slide per Tactic can form the basis of backbriefing to start getting people engaged in involved in the transformation work. Ultimately, it is this engagement through Catchball that will enhance communication.

The Evidence To Look For In A Successful Agile Transformation

Six forms of evidence which can indicate the sucess of an agile transformation.

I have recently been exploring in more detail how the X-Matrix might be used for an Agile Transformation. So far I have covered Aspirations, Strategies and Tactics. Following on from those, I will discuss Evidence in this post.

In some ways, this is probably the least controversial and builds on the work of two people who have influenced me greatly.

First is Larry Maccherone. I worked with Larry at Rally where he first published his research into The Impact of Agile Quantified. The second is Troy Magennis. Troy has built on Larry’s work and has written about the Six Dimensions of Team Performance. Consequently, it is these six dimensions that I use as the basis for describing evidence, albeit with some small tweaks in language. They describe important outcomes to look for as part of an Agile Transformation. The image to the right, which is one we use at TEKsystems Global Services, shows these dimensions.

Productivity

Evidence of productivity shows that work can be delivered in greater quantity. Throughput – the number of pieces of work per unit of time – is a good measure of productivity. For example, stories per week. Similarly, velocity can also be a proxy, although it can be too easily gamed. Additionally, the DORA metrics of deployment frequency can also correlate to productivity.

Predictability

Evidence of predictability shows that work can be delivered consistently and reliably. I talk about this in more detail in my post on how to measure the predictability of Agile. In that post, I recommend several measures. They include variability of cycle time, the amount of ageing work in progress or the number of blockers that are causing work to age.

Responsiveness

Evidence of responsiveness shows that work can be delivered quickly. Some form of cycle time is the most common way to measure responsiveness. That could be the full value stream cycle time. Or it could be a more qualified cycle time for a subset of the value stream. The DORA metric of lead time for changes is an example of this.

Quality

Evidence of quality shows that work is being delivered in the right way. The number of escaped defects that are reported after release is one simple way to measure quality. Additionally, some of the other DORA metrics are relevant here as well. Specifically, these are the mean time to restore and change failure rate. Finally, customer satisfaction can also correlate to quality, although this can also show evidence of value.

Sustainability

Evidence of sustainability shows that work can continue to be delivered in the long term. Two aspects of sustainability are important. Firstly, there is technical sustainability in terms of the state of the codebase and architecture. Code analysis tools which measure things like complexity, duplication or unit test coverage can be useful for this. A strong codebase and architecture will be more resilient to future changes. Secondly, there is human sustainability in terms of people’s ability to maintain their levels of performance. Employee or team engagement, or employee churn rates, can be useful measures for this. An unstable team with low morale runs the risk of losing valuable information and knowledge which will slow them down.

Value

Evidence of value shows that the right work is being delivered. Value as an aspiration overlaps somewhat with its use as evidence. Especially when it can often be very contextual and subjective for each organisation. However, strategic alignment can be a good indicator that the right work is being done. That is the percentage of the teams’ work that can be traced back to strategies, both intentionally and explicitly. Additionally, as noted earlier, customer satisfaction can also correlate to value.

It’s worth emphasising a few things for all these forms of evidence. Most importantly, none of these indicators are intended to be used as targets or incentives. As such, there needs to be a balance between them so that no single metric gets too much individual focus. Therefore, it is important to consider the impact of focusing too much on a metric, as well as focusing too little. There will have to be tradeoffs and they can’t all be perfect!

I haven’t given an exhaustive list here, and I’m always interested in learning about alternative indicators. So, if you have your favourites that I haven’t mentioned, please let me know!

The Sankey Diagram As A Simple Addition To The X-Matrix

The original 1898 Sankey Diagram showing the thermal efficiency of a steam engine

The Sankey Diagram can be a simple but powerful technique which can complement, and possibly enhance the X-Matrix. This post will show how.

What is a Sankey Diagram?

A Sankey Diagram is a visualisation technique which shows the flow between nodes. The link widths usually represent the magnitude of the relationship, and colour can also display other attributes. It’s named after Matthew Henry Phineas Rile Sankey who used the style in his 1898 diagram (on the right) showing the thermal efficiency of a steam engine .

How it can be helpful?

I first came across the Sankey Diagram from Troy Magennis who uses it in one of his spreadsheets to show the flow of work from strategies, to work, to teams. This is an example of his:

Planning Sankey Diagram from Troy Magennis
Planning Sankey Diagram by Troy Magennis

I find this visualisation extremely powerful and have recently been using the approach as a complementary technique alongside the X-Matrix.

A Simple Example

One of the powerful aspects of the X-Matrix is its ability to show all the elements, and the messy coherence between them, of the TASTE model for Strategy Deployment. However, the downside is that there is a lot to take in, and it can be overwhelming. A simple solution is to present each corner of the matrix separately (i.e. each corner matrix). Thus there opens up the possibility of visualising those separate relations more simply as well. Consequently, the Sankey Diagram becomes a useful approach.

Using the example of Aspirations and Strategies from a couple of recent posts, I have created an example shown on the X-Matrix as below. In doing so, I have suggested some plausible relationships between them with the typical full and empty dots. A full dots represent a strong and direct contribution of a Strategy to an Aspiration. Similarly, an empty dot represents a weak or indirect contribution of a Strategy to an Aspiration.

Converting this into a Sankey Diagram gives us the following (generated with SankeyMATIC). The dark red link is the equivalent of the strong and direct full dot. The light green link is the equivalent of the weak and indirect empty dot. I could also have used the width of the links to show relative strength and directness, and colour to represent the originating Strategy.

Future Potential

This opens up the possibility of visualising a full X-Matrix as a Sankey Diagram, with links instead of dots. It is possible for Sankey Diagrams to be circular and show loops. However, that’s not somethng I’ve explored in detail yet. The generators I’ve looked at so far don’t look like they will make it easy to get the right layout and the effort might outweight the benefit. I’d love to be proved wrong though!

Abstracting Aspirations with a Value Framework

The end of a rainbow disappearing behind some trees, representing the aspirations which guide towards realising value.

In previous posts, I have described a high-level way of thinking about Agile Tactics for the TASTE model and the X-Matrix. This post follows them by introducing a generic way of thinking about Aspirations.

What are Aspirations?

On the X-Matrix template, I describe Aspirations as the “results we hope to achieve”. Aspirations are just hopes and desires, and that is an important point. They describe ambitions and the size of those ambitions. As such, aspirations are intended to help provide a sense of the magnitude and scale of the journey, along with the direction set by the True North. I sometimes ask the question, “at the end of the year (or another period), how will we know if we have been successful?” The goal is to be able to recognise progress and achievement. That may be subjective, and not have any specific numbers. Equally, it may be defined in relative terms rather than absolute numbers.

I have already discussed some considerations regarding measures with the X-Matrix to avoid the “tyranny of the explicit” and a “cliché of platitudes”. Additionally, we want to avoid Goodhart’s Law, often stated as “when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure”. Thus, aspirations are not targets or specific goals and are not there to incentivise or reward people. Instead, they should help people recognise and focus on what is important.

A Value Framework

With those caveats dealt with, how can we identify aspirations? Typical examples I give tend to be around the nature of a specific business and its business model. For example, that might relate to markets, customers, products, or subscriptions. However, in general, I find that the aspirations can be tied back to a value framework described by Joshua Arnold. I’d recommend reading his post on understanding value which describes the framework in more detail.

In summary, there are four buckets:

  • Increase Revenue – Additional sales to new or existing customers, by delighting or disrupting to increase market share and size.
  • Protect Revenue – Improvements and incremental innovations, to sustain current market share and size.
  • Reduce Costs – Becoming more efficient with improved margins or contribution, to lower costs that are currently being incurred.
  • Avoid Costs – Improvements which sustain and do not increase the current cost base, or prevent costs that are not currently incurred but may be in the future.

Value Buckets as Aspirations

I think that this can be a useful framework to help organisations think through what their aspirations are for their agile transformations. It helps clarify what they hope to achieve through a transformation. For example, it could be that they want to be able to go after new customer segments or markets. i.e. Increase Revenue. Or they may want to improve quality and reduce customer churn. i.e. Protect Revenue. They may want to improve internal processes through automation. i,e. Reduce Costs. Or they may want to increase employee engagement and reduce employee churn. i,e. Avoid Costs.

Thus, the value framework can help articulate what success might look like, in terms of direction and magnitude. As a result, the challenges or opportunities that need to be addressed in order to meet the aspirations can start to be diagnosed and identified. That in turn allows coherent strategies for agile transformations to be explored. I plan to write about this more in a future post.

A crude metaphor might be that Aspirations, and this value framework, can be a guide towards the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, and help determine when it has been found. However, the Aspirations don’t indicate exactly where that pot of gold is, or guarantee how much will be in it.

The most important X-Matrix lessons I have learned

X-Matrix Jigsaw Example

In my recent post The Ultimate X-Matrix For Your Agile Transformation I asked people to share how they have used it. In response, Elisabeth Keuschnigg posted her experience on LinkedIn. A lot of what Elisabeth wrote resonated with me and it got me thinking. What are the most important learnings I have had over the many years of using the X-Matrix?

Here are the top five I came up with:

1. It doesn’t have to be explicit

I’ll often use the TASTE model implicitly. On its own, I find it a great way of exploring a context and understanding the dynamics of a transformation. I’ve found that forcing an X-Matrix on people when they’re not ready for it will negate its impact. They need to be ready to have that conversation. Only when I’m comfortable that people are willing to explore and collaborate with the X-Matrix will I introduce it. When that time comes, it then becomes very easy to start fleshing out and filling in an X-Matrix and discussing the various elements and coherence.

2. The more collaboration the better

As a general rule, the more people involved in creating an X-Matrix, the better. I will occasionally sit down with someone and flesh one out individually. However, there is always the risk that the output is taken and distributed as a finished document. Instead, in those situations, I want to use that output as input into a larger conversation. The goal then is to get feedback, a wider perspective, and increased diversity of thought. It’s this collaboration that creates “the memory of what was said and felt that creates alignment, not the final piece of paper”, to quote Thomas L Jackson in Hoshin Kanri for the Lean Enterprise.

3. Perfect is the enemy of the good

I don’t think I’ve ever created an X-Matrix which felt perfect. There are always small tweaks and changes that could be made to the language used. Often there are even multiple plausible variants that could work. The risk of collaborating with too many people (see above) is that it becomes harder to agree on the final version. In this case, it’s OK to have someone (or a smaller group) make the final decision. To repeat the above quote again, it’s “the memory of what was said and felt that creates alignment, not the final piece of paper”. Perfection of the final piece of paper is thus less important.

4. Its a trajectory and not a target

One of the risks with the X-Matrix is that it gets used to set targets and define end states and final solutions. That’s one of the reasons why I included True North in TASTE. We use True North (or the North Star) to set our direction, but it is not our destination. It’s also why I chose to use the terms Aspirations and Evidence instead of alternatives such as Results or Measures. It can be useful to include some numeric detail for the Aspirations to indicate the size of the ambition. However, I generally prefer to describe those things in relative terms such as increasing or decreasing.

5. You do actually need a strategy

This might seem obvious, but the thing I’ve realised most from using the X-Matrix is that most organisations have no idea what their strategy is. Or those that do have a strategy have what Richard Rumelt would define as Bad Strategy; the failure to face the challenge, mistaking goals for strategy, bad strategic objectives, or fluff. And even when there might be a strategy in place, it’s rarely communicated well. Instead, it is just pushed down the organisation as projects and plans, losing the original intent in the process. Of course, this is where the X-Matrix can be most powerful, helping to identify a good strategy, align people to it, and share the whole context with a wider audience.

The Miroverse Now Has An X-Matrix Template

I have just had an X-Matrix template for Miro added to the Miroverse.

X-Matrix Miroverse Template
X-Matrix Miroverse Template

I’ve laid it out so there are five frames at the top to start capturing content for the different elements. These frames also include some prompts and considerations to help with the conversation.

Then there is the X-Matrix, with full and empty dots for the correlations.

Finally, there is a copy of the recent example that I published.

Please let me know of any feedback on how easy the template is to understand and use, or if there are other suggestions for improving it.

The Ultimate X-Matrix For Your Agile Transformation Is Here

Whenever I’ve described the X-Matrix I’ve always had to resort to trivial and made-up examples. This is because real examples are difficult to share due to some form of NDA, and the content means that they need to remain confidential.

However, I have recently finished working on a transformation where the X-Matrix was close to something I could publish. Thus with some simplification and anonymisation, I feel safe to be able to use it. That means that when I say it’s the ultimate one, I mean I’ve finally got around to creating it as an example 🙂

To re-iterate, this is still edited and is still somewhat generic. However, I hope it’s close enough to its original form to be helpful and demonstrate how the X-Matrix might be used. It is not intended to be an exemplar to be copied. In fact, I hope that people question the content, and even find fault with it. After all, as Thomas L Jackson says in Hoshin Kanri for the Lean Enterprise, “it’s the memory of what was said and felt that creates alignment, not the final piece of paper”.

The Example

Given those caveats, here it is, followed by some explanation.

An Example X-Matrix for an Agile Transformation
An X-Matrix Example

True North

“Instantaneous development and deployment”

The intent of this True North was to describe a future where development teams could implement and release a customer request as soon as it came in. This gave the teams a clear sense of direction and met my 3C’s of a good True North. It was challenging in that the teams were a long, long way from being able to achieve it. Next, it was compelling, in that it was something the teams wanted to be able to achieve. Finally, it was concrete, in that the teams knew what it would take to achieve.

Aspirations

  • More releases
  • Fewer defects
  • Less waste

These were existing measures the organisation was already using for their overall transformation, with defined metrics in place. In this case, waste was considered to be work that was an unnecessary overhead or burden. Using these existing measures as aspirations meant that we could connect what we were doing with the wider organisational effort.

Strategies

  • Prioritisation
  • Collaboration
  • Flow

There was much discussion and debate in coming up with these three strategies. The actual wording was more verbose and more explicitly described the choices we were making. We settled on them as the three main guiding policies that would help us focus. When deciding on any actual changes we were going to make, they should help to improve one or more of these areas in some way. Put another way, these three strategies represented the key challenges we were addressing after the initial diagnosis.

Tactics

  • Cross Skilling
  • Automation
  • Agile Fundamentals
  • Product Management

These tactics were the four main areas and workstreams we felt would help make a positive change. They are more specific that the strategies, while still enabling teams to explore different solutions and approaches. In fact, we ended up prioritising Agile Fundamentals, before moving on to Product Management. The other two were longer-term goals and linked to other work that was going on that the teams were able to contribute to.

Evidence

  • Productivity
  • Responsiveness
  • Predictability
  • Quality
  • Value

The first three of these used standard flow metrics, which we introduced to the teams. Building on this, quality and value both looked at the nature of the work flowing through the teams using simple demand analysis.

Correlations

Having come to an agreement on the different elements of the X-Matrix, the coaching and transformation team discussed the correlations. There was a rich discussion about how the various pieces contributed to and reinforced each other (or not). Inevitably, this led to multiple iterations and evolutions before we settled on this version. In fact, the whole X-Matrix was a result of multiple working sessions where we refined our understanding of what the current situation was, what our approach was going to be, and what we were going to do. Our understanding of the X-Matrix continued to change as we progressed with the work, and we did revisit it a number of times, although we never formally updated it.

Conclusion

I hope that gives a sense of how I use the X-Matrix in my work as part of an agile transformation. I’m also always interested in how other people use it, although I understand how difficult that can be. If you do have something you can share, please let me know. Maybe we can create a collection of examples and show a wider variety of approaches.

What is a True North?

True North
True North

The True North is the first element of my TASTE model and is in the middle of my X-Matrix template. It is the central piece which holds the other elements together. On the X-Matrix I define the True North as:

The orientation which informs what we should do.

That is a bit abstract and jargony, so lets unpack it a bit. By orientation I mean that a True North sets direction. That direction doesn’t define any specific destination, let alone how we get there, but it does help us decide (i.e. it informs) what the next steps might be. In other words, rather than simply following a plan, we can ask “does this step take us towards our True North or away from it?”

When if comes to actually crafting a True North statement I’ve been evolving the way I describe my approach, and my current recommendation is to consider 3 aspects, conveniently as usual beginning the C.

  • Is it challenging? In fact a good True North is probably so challenging that its unlikely to be achievable in the foreseeable future. As such, it is not a target.
  • Is it compelling? Is it something that people will want to spend their time working on? Will it bring people together to collaborate on the collective challenge?
  • Is it concrete? Can people imagine what it would be like to achieve this ideal best? In other words its more than a woolly vision or mission statement or a set of platitudes.

I find that those 3 together can be used to create something which is short and snappy and describes something which is both ambitious and inspiring; a utopian outcome which is just over the horizon and out of reach.

As an example, a typical True North for a Lean manufacturing plant might be something along the lines of “zero defects”. Probably not achievable in the near term, but imaginable and worthy of striving for.

A recent example for an Agile Transformation was along the lines of “immediate development and deployment of customer requests”. Again, definitely not achievable in the near term, but clear enough to create alignment and focus.

There’s a phrase I picked up from somewhere (Google suggest multiple sources, mostly to do with personal development) that suggests focussing on:

who you want to be, not what you want to do

This seems like another way to think about a True North, describing an organisations long term objective rather than a short or medium term plan or solution.

Comparing Strategy Alignment Frameworks

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.

CapabilitiesOKRsSpotify RhythmStrategy Briefing4DXTASTE X-Matrix
Setting of goalsyyyyy
Measurabilityyyyyy
Prioritisation(y)yyyy
Identifies main effortyyy
Communicating intent and whyyyy
Transparent “line of sight” to the topyyy
“Is it achievable” feedbackyyy(y)
Self-assessment of achieved objectiveyyy(y)
Situational awarenessy(y)
Freedom/boundaries conversationyy(y)
Has plenty of easy-to-access material in the topicyy
Visualisation of status and progressy

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.”