RESULT OBTAINED
Canonical method
ADL matrix: crossing industry maturity and competitive position
What must be established
A useful analysis keeps its controls visible.
- 01
Define the indicators that characterise start-up, growth, maturity or decline.
- 02
Assess the competitive position with several pieces of evidence rather than an overall impression.
- 03
Compare the conclusion with BCG and GE-McKinsey to spot the model-sensitive prescriptions.
Decision reference
Make the next choice more explicit.
DECISION SUPPORTED
How to compare activities when their industry and their competitive position do not evolve at the same pace?
DELIVERABLE TO KEEP
A dynamic reading of the portfolio that makes maturity, position and ranking disagreements visible.
NEXT ELEMENT TO EXAMINE
BCG matrixExplore →Qualify maturity
Growth, diffusion, standards, concentration and renewal of the offer give different signals. The stage retained must keep this evidence and the contradictions.
- Demand
- Technology
- Structure
- Regulation
Assess the position
The competitive position combines access, capabilities, costs, brand and control of the key factors. It cannot be reduced to market share.
- Access
- Costs
- Capabilities
- Customer evidence
Compare the models
ADL, BCG and GE-McKinsey do not use the same axes. A recommendation that changes with the matrix must be presented as model-sensitive.
- ADL conclusion
- BCG conclusion
- GE conclusion
- Gap to resolve
Example: a mature activity in a strong position
An activity can be ranked strong in a mature industry without automatically justifying additional investment. The diagnosis must confront resource generation, renewal needs, synergies and the sensitivity of the ranking to the BCG and GE-McKinsey models.
- Documented stage
- Relative position
- Investment need
- Counter-test
Method dossier
Conditions of use, controls and limits
This dossier makes the reasoning verifiable. It does not turn a matrix into scientific proof.
Definition
The ADL matrix crosses the industry life cycle and the competitive position. The comparative example makes visible the evidence and uncertainties behind each ranking.
Marketing case
Use the ADL matrix when a team must produce a comparable diagnosis before choosing, deferring or abandoning an option. The method organises the examination; it replaces neither the human decision nor the evidence specific to the market studied.
Decision question
How to compare activities when their industry and their competitive position do not evolve at the same pace?
Why this method
It requires making the criteria, the observations and the areas of uncertainty debatable before the commitment. The priority controls are: Define the indicators that characterise start-up, growth, maturity or decline. Assess the competitive position with several pieces of evidence rather than an overall impression. Compare the conclusion with BCG and GE-McKinsey to spot the model-sensitive prescriptions.
Intuition
The result becomes useful when each ranking or category can be linked to an observation, a convention and a decision consequence. A box, a list or a score remains an assumption as long as this link is not established.
Data required
Build a dated register: decision scope, unit analysed, comparable observations, source, period, ranking convention and missing elements. Separate facts, estimates, opinions and working assumptions.
Formalisation
Before any synthesis, set the units compared, the axes or criteria, the threshold rules and the handling of ambiguous cases. An optional weighting organises the discussion; it does not make the result objectively true.
Procedure
1. Frame the decision and the alternatives. 2. Gather comparable observations. 3. Document each ranking and counter-argument. 4. Translate the result into an option, a renunciation, a threshold and a review date.
Worked example
On a teaching case, fill in the variables for two options over the same horizon, make the ranking explicit and record what would change the conclusion. Example values are not market data and must never be generalised without control.
Assumptions
Make sure the assumptions about the scope, the comparability of the observations, the stability of the categories and the mechanism linking the diagnosis to the option are testable. Any assumption that cannot be tested with the available data must remain flagged as such.
Diagnostics
Check the definitions, periods, units, sources and contradictions. If a data point is missing, too old or not comparable, do not compensate silently: flag it, lower the confidence level and define the collection needed.
Robustness
Counter-test the diagnosis with a competing option, a reasonably different convention or an independent source. If the conclusion tips over, present it as sensitive to the model or the assumption, not as a stable recommendation.
Interpretation
Interpret the result as an aid to comparison. It can reveal a diligence priority, an incompatibility or an option to explore; on its own it does not give an order to invest, divest or launch.
What can be concluded
The sheet makes it possible to formulate a dynamic reading of the portfolio that makes maturity, position and ranking disagreements visible.
What cannot be concluded
The life cycle of an industry is a revisable interpretation. An innovation or a regulatory change can shift the trajectory.
Marketing decision
Record the option retained, the options discarded, the decisive criteria, the insufficient evidence and the decision-maker. A useful conclusion also describes what should be observed before reinforcing or reversing the choice.
When to use or avoid
Use the method when the units to compare and the decision are explicit. Avoid it when the scope is undefined, the data is not comparable, or when a causal conclusion, a quantified forecast or a detailed operational decision is requested without a suitable protocol.
Reproducibility
This sheet describes a reasoning protocol, not a universal result. To reproduce an analysis, keep the register of inputs, the sources, the dates, the conventions, the transformations, the rankings and the version of the deliverable. Without these artefacts, the result is only illustrative.
Level of evidence and sources
Maximum level declared: E1 for documented definitions and sources; E0 for the decision grids proposed by the sheet. 2 sources are displayed below. No causal or predictive conclusion is claimed.
DECISION ASSET
ADL, BCG and GE-McKinsey comparator
The ADL matrix keeps the evidence of maturity and position, then confronts its reading with two other models.
Maturity
- Input
- Demand, standard, structure
- Control
- Which stage and which contradictions?
- Output
- Industry axis
Position
- Input
- Access, costs, capabilities
- Control
- Which relative evidence?
- Output
- Company axis
ADL reading
- Input
- Area of the matrix
- Control
- Which prescription is suggested?
- Output
- Hypothesis
Counter-test
- Input
- BCG and GE-McKinsey
- Control
- Does the conclusion change?
- Output
- Model sensitivity
- The Arthur D. Little model, IUT en ligne (opens in a new tab)Teaching presentation of the crossing of maturity and competitive position.
- ADL matrix: method and applications (opens in a new tab)Practical sequence and commonly used categories.
MOVE FROM ANALYSIS TO YOUR DECISION
Produce a testable decision mandate
MOVE FROM ANALYSIS TO YOUR DECISION
Produce a testable decision mandate
RETURN TO THE DECISION SYSTEM
See the canonical definition of marketing strategy→