ROI Case File No.325 | 'Matrix Vision's Flat Trap'

Chapter 1: The Illusion of Smooth Progress—Numbers Look Good, But Something's Wrong

The week after the BlueOcean Blue Ocean case was solved, a consultation arrived from Tokyo regarding organizational diagnosis at a business development company. Episode 325 of Volume 27, "The Pursuit of Reproducibility," tells the story of three-dimensionally visualizing invisible friction.

"Detective, our new business division looks smooth on paper. Revenue is on plan, projects progressing as scheduled. However, voices from the field say 'something's wrong.' Misaligned departmental understanding, slow decision-making, spinning-wheel meetings... Looking at KPIs, we can't identify the cause."

Shinya Sato, Corporate Planning Director at Matrix Vision, a Shibuya native, visited 221B Baker Street unable to hide his confusion. In his hands were favorable KPI reports and, in stark contrast, survey results marked "organizational stagnation."

"We support new business launches in Tokyo. Founded 8 years ago. We provide everything from strategy planning to execution support for large companies' new business divisions. And two years ago, we established our own new business division. We're developing and selling AI-powered workflow efficiency tools."

Matrix Vision's New Business Division Situation: - Established: 2023 (new business division) - Annual revenue: ¥280M (plan ¥250M, achievement rate 112%) - Staff: 24 (Development 12, Sales 8, Marketing 4) - Project progress rate: Average 92% (as planned) - Customer satisfaction: 4.2/5 (industry average level) - Problem: Numbers favorable but field has stagnation and friction

Deep dissonance filled Sato's voice.

"The problem is that while surface-level looks smooth, the field is exhausted. Last month, we conducted an internal survey. To the question 'Are you satisfied with work?', only 38% answered 'satisfied.' The remaining 62% were 'dissatisfied' or 'neither.' Revenue is achieved, so why is satisfaction so low..."

Typical Organizational Friction:

Development Team Meeting (Monday Morning):

Development Leader A: "This week, we'll prioritize implementing new feature X. Sales said 'customers want it.'"

Development Member B: "But last week you said prioritize new feature Y, right? Y isn't finished yet."

Development Leader A: "Y is on hold for now. Sales said X has higher priority."

Development Member C: "Priorities change every week... Honestly, I don't know what to build."

Sales Team Meeting (Monday Afternoon):

Sales Leader D: "This week, let's propose new feature X and secure contracts."

Sales Member E: "X, when will it be released? Last week I told a customer 'releasing next month'..."

Sales Leader D: "Ask development. Our job is selling."

Sales Member E: "...Understood."

Marketing Team Conversation (Tuesday):

Marketing Staff F: "Last month, we ran a campaign for new feature Z. But response was poor. Why?"

Marketing Leader G: "Didn't match customer needs? Did you check with sales?"

Marketing Staff F: "Sales said 'customers want it.' But it actually didn't sell."

Management Meeting (Friday):

Sato: "Let's check this week's KPIs. Revenue, achievement rate 112%. Project progress, 92%. Going smoothly."

Development Leader A: "Numbers look good, but the field is confused. Priorities change every week."

Sales Leader D: "That's development's problem. We're just conveying customer voice."

Marketing Leader G: "Maybe customer voice isn't being accurately conveyed? Our campaign also missed."

Sato: "...Then, let's investigate the cause. Report by next week."

Next week, the same discussion loops

Sato sighed deeply.

"Even discussing at meetings, we can't identify the cause. Development says 'sales is bad,' sales says 'development is bad,' marketing says 'both are problems.' KPIs are achieved, but the organization isn't functioning. We can't see where the problem is."

Chapter 2: The Limits of Flatness—Time and Perspective Are Missing

"Mr. Sato, how are you currently analyzing problems?"

To my question, Sato answered.

"We track numbers on KPI dashboards. Revenue, progress rate, satisfaction... However, from these numbers we can't see 'why things aren't working.' Also, we're conducting departmental hearings, but each department's claims are scattered and can't be integrated."

Current Approach (Flat Analysis Type): - Analysis: KPIs and departmental hearings - Problem: Time axis missing (past, present, future) - Problem: Perspective axis missing (WHY, HOW, WHAT)

I explained the importance of three-dimensional issue analysis.

"Problems aren't visible in two dimensions. 6D Matrix—cross time axis (past, present, future) with perspective axis (WHY, HOW, WHAT), three-dimensionally visualize issues across 6 dimensions. This is how to visualize invisible friction."

⬜️ ChatGPT | Concept Catalyst

"Don't think flat. Visualize in 6D. Problems hide at intersections."

🟧 Claude | Story Alchemist

"When combining time and perspective, invisible causality surfaces."

🟦 Gemini | Compass of Reason

"6D Matrix is three-dimensional analysis technology. Visualize causality with Past/Present/Future × WHY/HOW/WHAT."

The three members began analysis. Gemini deployed the "6D Matrix Framework" on the whiteboard.

6D Matrix Structure:

           WHY        HOW        WHAT
          (Why)      (How)      (What)
Past    │   1      │   2      │   3   │
Present │   4      │   5      │   6   │
Future  │   7      │   8      │   9   │

Six Perspectives (actually 9 cells, but 6 are key): 1. Past×WHY: Reasons for past decisions 2. Past×HOW: Past execution methods 3. Past×WHAT: Past deliverables 4. Present×WHY: Causes of current issues 5. Present×HOW: Current coping methods 6. Present×WHAT: Current situation 7. Future×WHY: Future purpose 8. Future×HOW: Future solutions 9. Future×WHAT: Future goals

"Mr. Sato, let's analyze Matrix Vision's new business division with 6D Matrix."

Chapter 3: Discovery Through Three-Dimensional Vision—Friction Lurks in "Past×WHY"

Phase 1: Filling the 6D Matrix (2 weeks)

We conducted a workshop with management, department heads, and 12 key members.

Workshop Rules: - Each person fills 9 cells of "Past/Present/Future" × "WHY/HOW/WHAT" on sticky notes - Post on whiteboard, group them - Visualize common points and contradictions

Results:

1. Past×WHY (Reasons for past decisions):

Development Leader A: "The reason for launching the new business division was 'creating workflow efficiency tools using AI.'"

Sales Leader D: "No, it was supposed to be 'creating customizable tools for large enterprises.'"

Marketing Leader G: "I heard 'creating affordable SaaS for small and medium enterprises.'"

Contradiction discovered: Launch purpose differed by department

2. Past×HOW (Past execution methods):

Development Leader A: "First six months, we built a prototype. Developed together with large enterprise Company A."

Sales Leader D: "Company A requested massive customization. We responded to all of it."

Development Member B: "Company A-specific features increased too much, losing versatility."

Contradiction discovered: Couldn't balance large enterprise customization with versatile SaaS

3. Past×WHAT (Past deliverables):

Development Leader A: "What was completed was 'Company A-specific workflow efficiency tool.'"

Sales Leader D: "Company A is satisfied. Contract continues."

Marketing Leader G: "But we can't sell to other customers. Too Company A-specific, lacks versatility."

Contradiction discovered: Deliverable didn't match market needs

4. Present×WHY (Causes of current issues):

Analysis so far revealed the cause.

Sato: "In other words, scattered 'WHY' in the past caused current confusion. Development toward 'versatile SaaS,' sales toward 'customization tool,' marketing toward 'SME-focused'... Everyone facing different directions."

Discovery: Root cause existed in "Past×WHY"

5. Present×HOW (Current coping methods):

Sales Leader D: "Currently, we're proposing to large enterprises. Customization assumed."

Development Leader A: "However, we want to create versatile features. Insufficient man-hours for customization response."

Marketing Leader G: "We're running campaigns for small and medium enterprises. But products are large enterprise-focused, so they don't resonate."

Discovery: Each department moving with scattered methods

6. Present×WHAT (Current situation):

Sato: "Revenue is achieved, but that's thanks to Company A's large contract. Other customers aren't increasing. And the field is exhausted."

7. Future×WHY (Future purpose):

Discussed together in workshop.

Sato: "Then, what should we really aim for? Let's redefine."

After 2 hours of discussion, consensus:

"AI workflow efficiency SaaS for mid-sized enterprises, usable from day of implementation"

• Eliminate large enterprise customization
• Too feature-rich for small enterprises
• Focus on mid-sized enterprises (50-500 employees)

8. Future×HOW (Future solutions):

With purpose determined, redefined each department's role.

Development: - Stop customization support - Focus on versatile features for mid-sized enterprises - UI/UX improvements to realize "day-one implementation"

Sales: - Stop proposals to large enterprises - Specialize in mid-sized enterprises (50-500 employees) - Standardize "implementation support package"

Marketing: - Stop campaigns for small and medium enterprises - Create content for mid-sized enterprises - Appeal "day-one implementation"

9. Future×WHAT (Future goals):

Goals After 6 Months: - New mid-sized enterprise contracts: 10 monthly - Average time to implementation completion: 1 week → 1 day - Customer satisfaction: 4.2/5 → 4.7/5

Chapter 4: The Effect of Integration—Organizational Change After 6 Months

Phase 2: Execution Based on 6D Matrix (6 months)

Redefined purpose, all departments facing same direction.

Development Team Changes:

Development Leader A: "Stopping customization support reduced development man-hours by 40%. Using that time for UI/UX improvements. Created setup wizard to realize 'day-one implementation.'"

Sales Team Changes:

Sales Leader D: "Specializing in mid-sized enterprises made proposals resonate. Not 'we'll customize for large enterprises' but 'usable from day of implementation' appeals to mid-sized enterprises."

Marketing Team Changes:

Marketing Leader G: "Unifying the 'day-one implementation' message tripled campaign response rate. Because sales proposals and marketing messages align."

Results After 6 Months:

Business Metrics: - Annual revenue: ¥280M → ¥360M (+29%) - New mid-sized enterprise contracts: Monthly average 2 → monthly average 12 (+500%) - Average time to implementation completion: 1 week → 1.2 days (83% reduction) - Customer satisfaction: 4.2/5 → 4.6/5

Organizational Metrics: - Internal satisfaction: 38% → 72% - Interdepartmental meeting time: Weekly average 8 hours → weekly average 3 hours (62% reduction) - Priority change frequency: Weekly → monthly

Sato's Summary:

"Before using 6D Matrix, we only looked at 'present problems.' KPIs being achieved, yet why is the field exhausted? The answer wasn't in the 'present.'

Visualizing 'Past×WHY' with 6D Matrix revealed the root cause. At launch, purpose differed by department. Development toward 'versatile SaaS,' sales toward 'customization tool,' marketing toward 'SME-focused'...

This contradiction created current friction. Redefining purpose, aligning everyone's direction with 'Future×WHY' moved the organization.

6D Matrix is technology for three-dimensional problem viewing. Crossing time axis of past/present/future with perspective axis of WHY/HOW/WHAT surfaced causal relationships."

Employee Voices:

Development Member B: "Previously, priorities changed weekly causing confusion. Now there's a clear axis: 'day-one implementation SaaS for mid-sized enterprises.' No more hesitation about what to build."

Sales Member E: "Previously, proposed to both large and small companies. But didn't resonate with either. Now, focused on mid-sized enterprises. Proposals pass more easily."

Marketing Staff F: "Previously, sales and development faced different directions, our campaigns also missed. Now, everyone unified under 'day-one implementation' message. That's why it resonates."

Chapter 5: The Detective's Diagnosis—Three-Dimensional Vision

That night, I reflected on the essence of 6D Matrix.

Matrix Vision was viewing the organization through the flat plane of KPIs. However, problems don't appear on planes. Only by viewing three-dimensionally with time and perspective axes did friction become visible.

Root cause in "Past×WHY," scatter in "Present×HOW," integration in "Future×WHY." This three-dimensional vision released organizational stagnation.

"Problems can't be told in two dimensions. Observe in three dimensions. 6D Matrix visualizes causality."

The next case will also depict the moment when three-dimensional vision illuminates truth.

"Don't think flat, visualize three-dimensionally. Past/Present/Future × WHY/HOW/WHAT. Six dimensions visualize invisible friction."—From the detective's notes

Related Files