Define the two axes
Specify observable maturity indicators and the competitor set before placing an activity on the matrix.
- Industry boundary
- Maturity indicators
- Competitor set
02 · ADL matrix
ADL matrix: assess maturity and competitive position
WHAT TO CHECK
A matrix with axis definitions, placement evidence, sensitivity and candidate actions.
- 01Define maturity indicators and the relevant industry boundary.
- 02Document the evidence behind competitive position.
- 03Test recommendations when either axis is uncertain.
Place with evidence
Record source, date, measure and uncertainty for each position rather than relying on workshop consensus alone.
- Evidence
- Placement
- Uncertainty
Use as a challenge
Compare strategic options across plausible placements and retain the facts that would move the activity.
- Options
- Sensitivity
- Review fact
METHOD QUALITY PROTOCOL
State the decision contract
Use the question “How do maturity and relative position change the strategic options worth testing?” as a contract: name the owner, deadline, scope and alternatives before collecting more material. The ADL matrix combines an industry life-cycle judgement with a relative competitive position. Its value lies in exposing the definitions and assumptions behind each axis before drawing portfolio implications. Record what is deliberately outside scope, who can challenge the framing and what consequence follows from postponement. This prevents an attractive framework, actor list or market story from silently replacing the decision that the analysis is meant to support.
- Owner and deadline
- Comparable alternatives
- Explicit boundary
- Cost of delay
METHOD QUALITY PROTOCOL
Build an inspectable evidence register
For every material statement, retain the original source, publication date, observation period, method, unit and relevant population. Distinguish observed facts, calculated estimates, interview judgements and assumptions. Connect the register to the promised output: A matrix with axis definitions, placement evidence, sensitivity and candidate actions. Missing or contradictory evidence remains visible with a responsible owner and a collection action; it is never converted into certainty merely to complete the page.
- Primary source
- Method and unit
- Confidence
- Evidence gap
METHOD QUALITY PROTOCOL
Apply one operating convention
Define the rules before applying the analysis: inclusion criteria, identifiers, comparison set, calculation or coding convention, treatment of missing values and version date. Reproduce the same convention across every option or actor. Use the page checks as acceptance tests, beginning with “Define maturity indicators and the relevant industry boundary.” A conclusion is usable only when another practitioner can reconstruct how the inputs became the displayed result and identify where judgement entered.
- Stable definitions
- Common comparison
- Versioned inputs
- Reproducible transformation
METHOD QUALITY PROTOCOL
Test uncertainty and rival interpretations
Challenge the preferred interpretation with at least one plausible alternative, contradictory observation and sensitivity test. Separate association from prediction and never infer intent, power or causality from a position, score or visual proximity alone. The standing limit remains: Life-cycle labels do not predict growth, and a relative position is not a causal explanation of profit. State which uncertainty is most likely to reverse the conclusion and what additional observation would discriminate between the competing explanations.
- Alternative explanation
- Counterevidence
- Sensitivity
- Decision-changing uncertainty
METHOD QUALITY PROTOCOL
Record the action and reopening rule
Turn the analysis into a dated decision record rather than a static page. Preserve the selected option, rejected alternatives, objections, accepted risks and first reversible action. Name the signal, numerical or qualitative threshold, review owner and review date that will confirm, adapt, pause or reopen the decision. Link every later update to its author and reason so that the history remains understandable when evidence or market conditions change.
- Decision trace
- First reversible step
- Review threshold
- Named owner
METHOD QUALITY PROTOCOL
Definition and decision scope
Define ADL matrix in operational terms before using it. State the decision unit, market boundary, time horizon and comparison set. The method must answer “How do maturity and relative position change the strategic options worth testing?” without quietly expanding its scope or replacing the decision with a descriptive classification.
- Operational definition
- Decision unit
- Boundary
- Time horizon
METHOD QUALITY PROTOCOL
Scope acceptance test
Ask an independent reviewer to identify what is included, excluded and held constant. The page passes only when two practitioners would analyse the same unit and period. Ambiguity is recorded as an assumption and assigned an owner before calculation or categorisation begins.
- Same unit
- Same period
- Explicit exclusions
- Named owner
METHOD QUALITY PROTOCOL
Marketing case and alternatives
Translate the method into a concrete marketing case with a named customer, offer, market or portfolio question. Preserve at least two genuine alternatives plus the status quo. The expected deliverable is A matrix with axis definitions, placement evidence, sensitivity and candidate actions. and must make trade-offs visible rather than presenting one preferred option as inevitable.
- Concrete case
- Status quo
- Two alternatives
- Visible trade-offs
METHOD QUALITY PROTOCOL
Decision-question test
Verify that the question can be answered by a choice, commitment or learning action. A broad request to understand the market is not sufficient. Record who decides, by when, which resources are constrained and what would happen if no option were selected.
- Decision owner
- Deadline
- Constraint
- Cost of no decision
METHOD QUALITY PROTOCOL
Why this method and not another
Explain which part of the decision ADL matrix illuminates and which parts require another lens. Compare it with a plausible alternative method. Selection should follow the uncertainty to reduce, not habit, visual appeal or the availability of a familiar two-by-two matrix.
- Relevant uncertainty
- Alternative method
- Selection rationale
- Complementary lens
METHOD QUALITY PROTOCOL
Intuition and mechanism
Describe the mechanism in plain language before introducing labels or scores: what changes, for whom, through which link and over what period. Mark the link as observed, estimated or assumed. A diagram may aid understanding, but proximity or quadrant membership never establishes causality.
- Actor
- Change
- Mechanism
- Evidence status
METHOD QUALITY PROTOCOL
Data requirements and dictionary
List every required field with definition, unit, geography, population, observation period, source and refresh date. Distinguish missing data from zero and not applicable. Use stable identifiers so updates reconcile the same market, segment, competitor or business unit across versions.
- Field definition
- Unit
- Observation period
- Stable identifier
METHOD QUALITY PROTOCOL
Source and comparability control
Check primary sources first and document transformations applied to secondary data. Compare like with like: currency, nominal or real values, calendar period, perimeter and denominator must match. Any conversion or proxy retains its formula, reason, confidence and effect on the decision.
- Primary source
- Comparable basis
- Conversion rule
- Proxy confidence
METHOD QUALITY PROTOCOL
Formalisation and conventions
Write the formula, coding rule or classification convention used by ADL matrix. Define every symbol, scale anchor, weight and sign. Explain whether a higher value is favourable, adverse or merely descriptive, and prevent a weighted average from compensating a binding constraint.
- Formula or rule
- Scale anchors
- Weight meaning
- Binding constraints
METHOD QUALITY PROTOCOL
Numerical integrity check
Recalculate totals, ratios and classifications from the displayed inputs. Check units, denominators, rounding and missing-value treatment. Preserve the unrounded value for reproduction and display the rounded value consistently. Any threshold is labelled as an agreed convention rather than a universal fact.
- Recalculation
- Denominator
- Rounding
- Threshold status
METHOD QUALITY PROTOCOL
Procedure and responsibilities
Describe the sequence from collection to decision: frame, gather, qualify, calculate, challenge, compare and record. For each step, identify the responsible role, input, output and acceptance condition. Separate mechanical operations from judgements that require an accountable human decision.
- Ordered steps
- Responsible role
- Input and output
- Human judgement
METHOD QUALITY PROTOCOL
Worked-example verification
Provide a compact example whose inputs, intermediate operations and final result can be followed line by line. Use realistic but explicitly simulated values. The narrative conclusion must match the numbers, while alternative assumptions show how a different result could legitimately emerge.
- Visible inputs
- Intermediate steps
- Matching conclusion
- Alternative result
METHOD QUALITY PROTOCOL
Assumptions as testable questions
Convert each material assumption into a question, observable indicator, source, threshold and review date. Separate assumptions testable with current data from those requiring an experiment, interview or future observation. Do not mark an assumption as validated merely because stakeholders agree with it.
- Testable question
- Indicator
- Threshold
- Review date
METHOD QUALITY PROTOCOL
Diagnostic response plan
For every diagnostic attached to ADL matrix, state what is calculated or observed, how to interpret it and what action follows when it fails. A warning without a response rule is incomplete. Record whether failure blocks the decision, changes confidence or triggers additional evidence.
- Observed signal
- Interpretation
- Failure action
- Decision impact
METHOD QUALITY PROTOCOL
Robustness and sensitivity
Vary the most uncertain inputs, scale anchors and weights across defensible ranges. Test alternative market boundaries and plausible missing values. Report which changes leave the recommendation stable and which reverse it; do not hide instability behind a single central estimate or colour.
- Input ranges
- Alternative boundary
- Missing-value case
- Ranking reversal
METHOD QUALITY PROTOCOL
Counterevidence and rival explanation
Search deliberately for observations that contradict the preferred reading. Compare at least one rival mechanism and identify the evidence that would discriminate between them. Distinguish association, prediction and causal claims, and reduce the wording whenever the available design cannot support the stronger claim.
- Counterevidence
- Rival mechanism
- Discriminating test
- Claim level
METHOD QUALITY PROTOCOL
Interpretation with calibrated language
Interpret the result at the level supported by the evidence. Keep this boundary visible: Life-cycle labels do not predict growth, and a relative position is not a causal explanation of profit. Explain magnitude, uncertainty, business relevance and affected option separately. Avoid converting a descriptive category into a forecast or a forecast into proof of causal impact.
- Magnitude
- Uncertainty
- Business relevance
- Claim boundary
METHOD QUALITY PROTOCOL
What may and may not be concluded
Publish two explicit lists: conclusions supported by the analysis and conclusions that remain unsupported. Include tempting overclaims such as guaranteed performance, universal superiority or inferred intent. Connect every permitted conclusion to the exact calculation, observation or source that supports it.
- Supported claims
- Forbidden claims
- Traceable basis
- No guarantee
METHOD QUALITY PROTOCOL
Decision, use and avoidance conditions
State the marketing action the result can inform, the first reversible step and the conditions under which the method should not be used. Preserve rejected alternatives and objections. The recommendation remains conditional on the evidence, constraints and review signals documented on the page.
- Conditional action
- Reversible step
- Avoidance case
- Rejected alternatives
METHOD QUALITY PROTOCOL
Reproducibility, sources and governance
Version the dataset, dictionary, parameters, code or worksheet and expected output. Record source localisers, licences and checksums where artefacts are retained. Name the reviewer, publication status and reopening signal. A future team must reproduce the result without guessing hidden conventions.
- Versioned artefacts
- Source localisers
- Independent review
- Reopening signal
LIMIT
Life-cycle labels do not predict growth, and a relative position is not a causal explanation of profit.
- UK Government, The Green Book (opens in a new tab)Guidance for assumptions, scales and sensitivity in comparative appraisal.