The Vision Deployment Matrix
Formulating concrete and achievable goals in time
Once the mission and vision of the organization are known, the translation of the vision into concrete goals that can be achieved in time and the description of the working method used to achieve these goals can be made (strategic policy). One of the instruments that can be used for this is the Vision Deployment Matrix by Daniel Kim (1995).
 |
| The Vision Deployment Matrix based on Daniel Kim (1995) |
The Vision Deployment Matrix works from five perspectives. This increases employee involvement. Despite the fact that people think and work from different perspectives, everyone can still make a contribution in this way. For example, an intervention can focus on adjusting existing mental models or more on making new work arrangements. Naturally, a combination of different perspectives can also be used in a particular intervention. The five perspectives from the Vision Deployment Matrix have been used by Shibley (2006) in his 'Learning Action Matrix'.
 |
| The Learning Action Matrix (Shibley, 2006) |
Each perspective level in the Vision Deployment Matrix is related to a certain type of action. In this way, the distinction between the different types of actions also becomes clear. For example, interventions from the perspective of 'mental models' will mainly comprise reflective actions.
The five perspectives and their associated actions are:
1. vision , is mainly related to generative actions:
Generative actions are related to the why-question, the intent. Why do we want to achieve a certain goal with each other?
3. structures , are mainly related to creative actions :
Based on our vision and mental models, structures are created that make the actions we want possible.
4. patterns , are mainly related to adaptive actions :
Which patterns do we want to create or break?
5. events , are mainly related to reactive actions :
Reactive actions carry the danger of alleviating symptoms. In the short term, the problem seems to be resolved, but because underlying causes (at one or more higher perspective levels) have not been addressed, the problem returns, sometimes even more severely than before, in the longer term.
It is very important to have insight into which perspective level an intervention is needed. One should be aware that a change at one level will often also entail changes at other perspective levels. Incidentally, interventions may also be required at several perspective levels. It is therefore not a linear process in which the various fields from the matrix can be 'finished' step by step, but an iterative process in which people will always be active at varying perspective levels.
Start from the desired reality
A nice thing about the model is that it starts from the desired reality, in other words: the collective ambition. Working from a collective ambition creates energy. It's nice to talk about that with each other. In this phase, the dreamed future is paramount in the conversations and not the everyday problems with all its limitations and frustrations.
Subsequently, the model (1st column) goes down: it examines which mental models fit/support the desired future and which structures can be created that should lead to the desired behavioral patterns. This concerns matters such as: time, money, resources, division of tasks, etc. Finally, one ends at the level of events. What do you see us doing or not doing when the dreamed future has become reality?
An important additional aspect of this 'visualizing the desired future as if it has already been realized' is that people are taken along and begin to see the desired future, to experience it to some extent, as it were. This makes people develop a stronger belief with regard to the chances of its realization.
After the desired future has been discussed down to event level, the transition is made to the current situation (2nd column). What do you see us doing now if you were to walk through the school? (Events). Which patterns can be observed? Which structures have we set up/deployed? Which mental models are present in the school? From which (implicit, unspoken) vision do we work in this current reality? Because people start from concrete actions, what they actually do and therefore what they really think becomes visible. After all, there often appears to be a big difference between what someone says is important, espoused theory/talk theory, and what someone actually does in practice, based on their theory in use/do theory (Swieringa & Jansen, 2005)*.
Once the desired and actual situations have been mapped out, the differences between the two are described (the gap), actions and indicators are formulated and the desired timeline is indicated.
* A person's espoused theory includes all those beliefs, attitudes, and judgments that the person says determine his actions. But if his actions do not correspond to this, then he apparently, consciously or unconsciously, uses other beliefs, views and judgments that explain why he does something different.
The 'theory of action consist of all prejudices, figments of the imagination, fantasies or whatever, that make someone do something other than what he says (Swieringa & Jansen, 2005).
 |
| Single and double loop learning (Argyris, 1978) |
Keeping the vision alive
Completing the Vision Deployment Matrix in a team is not only a very effective way to formulate concrete goals that can be achieved in time based on the formulated vision, it also offers a very good opportunity to arrive at processes of shared meaning and based on further concretization of the vision and keep it alive.
Bibliography
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1978). Organizational learning. A theory of action perspective. Reading, Mass.: Addison Wesley.
Kim, D. (1995). Vision Deployment Matrix 1. Shifting from a reactive to a generative orientation. The Systems Thinker: A framework for large-scale change., 6(1).
Kim, D. (1995). Vision Deplyment Matrix 2: Crossing the chasm from reality to vision. The Systems Thinker: A framework for large scale change., 6(1).
Shibley, J. (2006). A practice theory for organizational learning. The Systems Thinker, 17(3), 2 – 7.
Swieringa, J., & Jansen, J. (2005). Gedoe komt er toch. Schiedam: Scriptum.