Four Actions Framework
The Four Actions Framework, also known as the ERRC Grid (Eliminate, Reduce, Raise, Create), is a structured creative tool developed by W. Chan Kim and Renée Mauborgne as a companion to the Blue Ocean Strategy Canvas. While the Strategy Canvas visualises the current competitive landscape, the Four Actions Framework drives the practical decisions needed to break out of it. The framework poses four questions to challenge every factor an industry competes on: Which factors should be Eliminated because the industry takes them for granted even though they no longer deliver customer value? Which factors should be Reduced well below the industry standard, freeing up cost? Which factors should be Raised well above the industry standard? And which factors should be Created that the industry has never offered? The genius of the framework is its dual mandate: it simultaneously pursues differentiation (Raise and Create) and low cost (Eliminate and Reduce) — rejecting the traditional trade-off between value and cost. In a workshop setting, the ERRC Grid is an excellent stimulus for breaking strategic groupthink, forcing teams to make explicit choices rather than defaulting to incremental improvement, and creating a coherent strategic logic from which a new value curve can be drawn.
Facilitation script
- 1
Draw the ERRC Grid as four quadrants — Eliminate (top-left), Reduce (bottom-left), Raise (top-right), Create (bottom-right) — and brief the group on each. Stress that Eliminate and Reduce are as strategically important as Raise and Create.
10 min - 2
Compile the starting factor list: pull the factors from your Strategy Canvas horizontal axis, or brainstorm the 8–12 factors your industry competes on.
15 min - 3
Individual silent generation: each participant places factors into the four quadrants on sticky notes independently. Encourage bold moves — nothing is too radical at this stage.
10 min - 4
Cluster and reveal: bring all notes to the board, group similar ideas, and mark where the group converges and where it splits.
10 min - 5
Debate the contested items one by one, anchoring on two questions: 'What does the target customer actually value here?' and 'What does this cost us to maintain?'
20 min - 6
Converge on the final grid. Force at least 3 genuine Eliminate candidates and check that the Eliminate/Reduce decisions free up enough resources to fund the Raise/Create decisions.
15 min - 7
Sketch the resulting 'to-be' value curve — on the Strategy Canvas if available — and test it: is it focused, divergent from competitors, and summarisable in a compelling tagline?
10 min
Tips
Teams almost always over-populate 'Raise' and under-populate 'Eliminate'. Force the group to generate at least 3 genuine Eliminate candidates before moving on.
Watch out for 'Reduce' being used as a safe hedge when the team should be committing to 'Eliminate'. Reducing a factor still costs money.
The 'Create' quadrant is where the real blue ocean lives. Prompt it with: 'What do your non-customers wish existed in this category that they currently get elsewhere?'
Pair the ERRC Grid with customer interview insights rather than internal opinions alone — inside-out biases are the enemy of this exercise.
If the group gets stuck, use Six Paths thinking to generate alternative factor frames before returning to the ERRC Grid.
Common pitfalls
Over-populating Raise and under-populating Eliminate — the grid becomes a cost-adding wishlist with nothing funding it; force at least 3 genuine Eliminate candidates before moving on
Using Reduce as a safe hedge when the honest call is Eliminate — a reduced factor still costs money to maintain, and the room quietly avoids the hard decision
Filling the grid from internal opinion alone — without customer interview insight, inside-out bias reproduces exactly the industry logic the exercise exists to break
Treating the quadrants as brainstorm buckets and never converging — the framework's job is to force explicit choices, and a grid full of unresolved sticky notes is not a strategy
Skipping the final value-curve test — without checking the result is focused, divergent, and taglinable, you leave with four disconnected lists instead of a coherent strategic logic
Variations
For a 30-minute rapid version, pre-load the grid with a draft set of options and use the session only for debate and finalisation. For a product development context, map individual features rather than market factors. Can also be used for process redesign: Eliminate unnecessary steps, Reduce handoffs, Raise quality checkpoints, Create new automated flows.
Where it fits
When to use it
A Strategy Canvas has mapped the current competitive landscape and the group now needs to decide concretely how to diverge from it
The team defaults to incremental improvement and needs a structure that forces explicit choices about what to stop doing, not just what to add
You face cost pressure and a differentiation mandate at the same time — the grid pursues both by pairing Eliminate/Reduce with Raise/Create
An innovation sprint needs a strategic frame for a new product line rather than another open-ended brainstorm
Competitive benchmarking has left the group anchored on industry norms and you need to break the resulting strategic groupthink
When not to use it
The group cannot yet name the 8–12 factors its industry competes on — run a Blue Ocean Strategy Canvas first to establish the factor list
You only have internal opinions and no customer insight — gather customer interviews or Jobs-to-be-Done research first, because inside-out bias reproduces the industry logic the grid is meant to break
You need broad divergent idea generation rather than strategic decisions — the ERRC Grid is a convergence tool; use Six Paths thinking or open ideation to generate frames first
The task is executing an already-agreed strategy — a Business Model Canvas maps the operating implications better than revisiting the four actions
Leadership is unwilling to genuinely eliminate anything — without a real mandate to cut, the session degrades into a Raise-only wishlist
Related methods
Frequently asked questions
What is the ERRC Grid and is it the same as the Four Actions Framework?▾
Yes — the ERRC Grid (also written ERRC Matrix, or 'matriz ERRC' in Spanish-language strategy literature) and the Four Actions Framework are the same tool. ERRC stands for its four actions: Eliminate, Reduce, Raise, Create. It was developed by W. Chan Kim and Renée Mauborgne as part of Blue Ocean Strategy, as the companion tool that turns a Strategy Canvas diagnosis into concrete strategic decisions.
How do you fill in the ERRC Grid?▾
Start from the 8–12 factors your industry competes on, then sort each factor by asking four questions: which factors should be Eliminated because the industry takes them for granted though they no longer deliver customer value; which should be Reduced well below the industry standard to free up cost; which should be Raised well above the standard; and which should be Created that the industry has never offered. In a workshop, have participants sort factors silently on sticky notes first, then cluster and debate the contested ones.
What is the difference between the ERRC Grid and the Strategy Canvas?▾
The Strategy Canvas is diagnostic: it visualises the factors an industry competes on and how competitors perform on each, as a value curve. The ERRC Grid is decisional: it takes those same factors and forces choices — Eliminate, Reduce, Raise, or Create — from which a new, divergent value curve can be drawn. In practice you run the canvas first and the grid second.
How long does an ERRC Grid workshop take?▾
Plan 60–120 minutes for 3–20 participants: roughly 25 minutes for the briefing and factor list, 20 for silent generation and clustering, and the rest for structured debate, convergence, and sketching the new value curve. A 30-minute rapid version is possible if you pre-load the grid with draft options and use the session purely for debate and finalisation.
Why does the ERRC Grid include Eliminate and Reduce, not just Raise and Create?▾
Because the framework pursues differentiation and low cost simultaneously: Raise and Create drive differentiation, while Eliminate and Reduce free up the cost that funds it. Teams almost always over-fill Raise and neglect Eliminate — but without genuine eliminations the strategy is just an expensive feature list, which is why facilitators should insist on at least 3 real Eliminate candidates.
Plan your next workshop with AI
Workshop Weaver helps you combine methods like Four Actions Framework into a complete, timed agenda in minutes.
Try it freeMethod descriptions on Workshop Weaver are original content written by our team, based on established facilitation practices. This method was inspired by work from W. Chan Kim & Renée Mauborgne.