The Change Matrix
Pattern: A named solution to a recurring problem.
Map the positive and negative effects of the current reality, the transition, and the future reality so the proposed change can be judged from the other party’s point of view.
Also known as: Goldratt Change Matrix; corrected and enhanced Change Matrix; six-box Change Matrix; CM2.
The Change Matrix starts from Goldratt’s mountain story. A person climbs only when the whole situation looks acceptable: current pain, current positives, transition effort, transition gains, future reward, and future risk as that person sees them. Zultner’s 2023 correction turns the story into a six-box Thinking Process tool. Its purpose is not better persuasion against “resistance.” It tests whether the offered change is good for the person whose yes is needed.
Understand This First
• Six Layers of Resistance — the buy-in sequence the matrix often precedes.
• Evaporating Cloud — the conflict tool used when the matrix exposes incompatible needs or actions.
• Mafia Offer — the market-offer pattern that depends on customer-side value judgment.
Context
The Change Matrix sits before many TOC change conversations. Use it with an external customer, an internal client, a colleague, a steering committee, a training participant, or a manager whose approval is required. Zultner uses “customer” broadly: the person or group whose yes matters.
Goldratt’s original story is familiar in the field: alligator, mermaid, pot of gold, and crutches. The story’s claim is often summarized as “people don’t resist change; they resist changes they have good reason to judge as bad for them.” Zultner tightens the tool behind that story. The traditional four-box matrix mixes the transition with the future state. That hides two questions practitioners often need to ask: what value appears during the journey, and what downside remains after the change succeeds?
The corrected matrix separates three realities: current reality, transition, and future reality. Each has positive and negative effects. The six boxes give the practitioner a place to record Desirable Effects and UnDesirable Effects before choosing a buy-in path, a cloud, a Future Reality Tree, or an implementation plan.
Problem
TOC change work fails when the practitioner explains the value from the proposer’s side of the table. The practitioner sees the pot of gold: higher throughput, shorter lead time, better availability, fewer project overruns, or stronger market position. The person being asked to change may see something else: current positives they would lose, transition effort they cannot absorb, risk they do not trust, or future side effects the proposal has not handled.
Calling that “resistance” too early blames the person and hides the diagnostic work. A proposed change can be technically sound and still be a bad offer for a specific group at that moment. If the alligator is small, the mermaid is valuable, the crutches are heavy, the gold nuggets are missing, and the rattlesnake is real, saying no may be rational.
Forces
• The proposer knows the intended gain; the other party knows the lived cost.
• Current positives are easy for change agents to ignore. The mermaid may be comfort, identity, status, autonomy, or a working local routine.
• Transition effects are not the same as future effects. A path can be too risky even when the destination is attractive.
• Different groups evaluate the same change differently. One matrix rarely represents a whole organization.
• The next tool depends on the diagnosis. A missing future gain, a transition obstacle, and a conflict between needs call for different tools.
Solution
Build one Change Matrix for each distinct viewpoint whose yes, cooperation, or non-interference matters. Fill the boxes with outcomes the person cares about: Desirable Effects, UnDesirable Effects, and the current or future needs those effects express.
| Reality | Positive effects | Negative effects |
|---|---|---|
| Current reality | Mermaid: what the person likes, keeps, or would lose if the change happens. | Alligator: current pain, threat, waste, delay, risk, or dissatisfaction. |
| Transition | Gold nuggets: benefits from the journey itself, learning, preparation, early wins, or added capability. | Crutches: effort, cost, risk, obstacles, required preparation, or negative branches from making the change. |
| Future reality | Pot of gold: the desired post-change gain. | Rattlesnake: the downside that may remain or appear after the change succeeds. |
Then ask for a net judgment on each column and on the whole matrix. Is the current reality tolerable? Is the future reality worth choosing? Is this transition path worth using? Is the whole change better than available alternatives, including doing nothing for now?
The matrix is not filled with the proposer’s talking points. It is filled with the other party’s needs. If the proposed change is rejected, the matrix asks a better question than “why are they resisting?” It asks which box made the offer unattractive. The answer may point to a better future reality, a safer transition path, a clearer current alligator, or an injection that removes a conflict.
Do not use the matrix as a persuasion script: A Change Matrix is a discovery tool before it is a presentation aid. If the practitioner fills the boxes with what the other party is supposed to value, the tool becomes another sales deck. The diagnostic value comes from finding out what the other party actually counts as a gain, loss, effort, risk, or acceptable path.
How It Plays Out
A TOC implementation stalls before the first formal objection. A plant leadership team proposes S-DBR. The implementation team can explain the pot of gold: better flow and more reliable shipping. Supervisors see a different matrix. Their current mermaid is local control of release decisions. Their crutches are schedule disruption, retraining, and blame during the first unstable weeks. Their rattlesnake is a future where the official system works but supervisors lose authority without getting better support. The Six Layers conversation should not start with “agree this solution works.” It should start by acknowledging the current mermaid and reducing the transition crutches.
A market-constraint offer sounds strong but doesn’t meet the buyer’s matrix. A supplier offers a shorter lead time. The buyer’s current alligator is unreliable availability, but the buyer’s mermaid is a purchasing routine that spreads risk across several suppliers. The future pot of gold is faster replenishment, but the future rattlesnake is dependence on one supplier’s promise. A Mafia Offer has to answer that whole matrix. If it only advertises speed, the buyer may be right to say no.
A future threat is visible, yet decision makers stay near the lake. Youssef and Mabin use Zultner’s expanded matrix to explain why people may fail to act before future UDEs become current UDEs. The current mermaid can be strong, the alligator can feel distant, the transition crutches can look heavy, and the pot of gold may be too abstract. In that setting, a Conditional Reality Tree maps the bad future if no adequate action is taken. The Change Matrix explains why the decision to act is still unacceptable.
Consequences
Benefits. The Change Matrix turns “resistance” into a structured value diagnosis. It gives practitioners a neutral place to capture current gains, current pain, transition benefits, transition costs, future gains, and future risks without mixing them together. That diagnosis prevents premature tool choice. A weak alligator may require better problem agreement. Heavy crutches may require a Prerequisite Tree. A rattlesnake may require Negative Branch Reservation or Future Reality Tree work. A conflict between the mermaid and pot of gold may require an Evaporating Cloud.
It also keeps multi-party change honest. In a complex organization, finance, operations, sales, engineering, and front-line supervisors may each have a different matrix. The same proposal can be a good change for one group and a bad change for another. Separate matrices make that difference visible before the implementation plan depends on invisible consent.
Liabilities. The matrix can become a box-filling ritual. If the practitioner records vague phrases such as “better performance” or “less risk,” the tool does not add much. The box contents need to be concrete outcomes, preferably in the other party’s language.
The tool can also overstay its role. Zultner calls it a “step zero” Thinking Process tool. It captures needs and value judgments. It does not prove causal logic, design the injection, test negative branches, or sequence implementation. Once the matrix shows which concern matters, the practitioner still has to move to the right TOC tool.
Finally, the matrix can be politically uncomfortable. It may show that the proposed change is not yet a good change for a group whose cooperation the implementation assumed. That is not a failure of the matrix. It is the data the matrix exists to reveal.
Related Articles
Complements: Six Layers of Resistance — The Six Layers sequence the buy-in conversation; the Change Matrix diagnoses the value, cost, and visibility that make a person say yes or no before that conversation moves.
Informs: Conditional Reality Tree — Youssef and Mabin use Zultner's expanded matrix to explain why decision makers may stay near the current state even when a future negative reality is visible.
Supports: Evaporating Cloud (Conflict Resolution Diagram) — A Change Matrix can expose the needs, wants, and assumptions that later become an Evaporating Cloud when the proposed change creates a conflict.
Supports: Mafia Offer (Unrefusable Offer) — A Mafia Offer only works when the customer judges the future gains and transition path as better than the current reality and available alternatives.
Supports: ToC in Complex Organizations — Complex organizations often need separate Change Matrices for different approval groups because each group carries different current positives, current negatives, transition costs, and future concerns.
Sources
• Richard E. Zultner, “The Change Matrix: Corrected & Enhanced from 4 to 6 Boxes (CM2)”, TOCICO-recognized Body of Knowledge paper (2023). Primary source for the corrected six-box matrix, Current / Transition / Future columns, gold nuggets and rattlesnake additions, customer-needs framing, net judgment row, and “step zero” placement.
• Eliyahu M. Goldratt and Ilan Eshkoli, “Overcoming Resistance to Change: Isn’t It Obvious?” Goldratt Research Labs animation (2010). Source of the mountain, alligator, mermaid, pot-of-gold, and crutches story that Zultner corrects and extends.
• Cox, TOCICO Dictionary of Theory of Constraints Terms (2nd ed., 2012), entries “change analogy,” “Desirable Effect,” “UnDesirable Effect,” “buy-in,” and “layers of resistance.” The Dictionary preserves the change-analogy vocabulary and the certification-grade DE / UDE terms, but it does not include the Change Matrix itself as a tool entry.
• Cox and Schleier, Theory of Constraints Handbook (2010), Ch. 20 (Goldratt-Ashlag, “The Layers of Resistance”). Handbook source for the buy-in sequence that the Change Matrix often prepares but does not replace.
• Youssef and Mabin, “Conditional Reality Tree”, TOCICO-recognized Body of Knowledge paper (2024). Applies Zultner’s expanded matrix to situations where inaction or inadequate action leaves decision makers near the current state while future UDEs become likely.