STRATEGYMonths to result

The Four Actions Framework (ERRC)

Eliminate, Reduce, Raise, Create: four moves to break the value-cost trade-off

Problem it solves

unclear strategic direction

Best for

Product leaders and strategy teams redesigning their value proposition to escape commodity competition and create new demand

Not ideal for

Situations requiring only incremental optimization within a well-functioning strategy, or cost-cutting exercises that do not aim to create new value

Overview

Why this framework exists

The Four Actions Framework is the central action tool of Blue Ocean Strategy. It asks four questions that challenge the strategic logic and business model of any industry: Which factors that the industry takes for granted should be eliminated? Which factors should be reduced well below the industry standard? Which factors should be raised well above the industry standard? And which factors should be created that the industry has never offered?

The first two questions (Eliminate and Reduce) drive costs down by removing investments the industry makes out of habit or competitive mimicry rather than genuine buyer value. The second two questions (Raise and Create) drive buyer value up by addressing unmet needs and attracting noncustomers. The framework's power lies in requiring companies to pursue all four actions simultaneously, which is what breaks the traditional trade-off between differentiation and low cost.

The Eliminate and Create actions are particularly transformative because they push companies beyond incremental value maximization. Eliminating factors changes the competitive playing field itself rather than just adjusting your position on it. Creating factors that the industry has never offered opens entirely new sources of demand. Together, the four actions enable companies to construct a fundamentally new value curve that makes existing competition irrelevant.

Core principles

5 total
  1. Eliminating factors the industry takes for granted is often the most powerful strategic move because it redefines the game.
  2. Reducing over-designed features cuts costs without losing buyers, because customers were not valuing those features anyway.
  3. Raising and Creating without Eliminating and Reducing just inflates your cost structure and produces over-engineered offerings.
  4. The four actions must work as a system; pursuing any subset alone will not break the value-cost trade-off.
  5. Every industry factor that has persisted unchallenged for years is a candidate for elimination.

Steps

7 steps
  1. List all industry competing factors
    Using your Strategy Canvas, enumerate every factor your industry competes on. Include product features, service elements, marketing approaches, distribution methods, pricing conventions, and brand attributes. Be exhaustive.
    Pro tipInclude factors that feel so fundamental they seem impossible to remove. Those are often the richest elimination candidates.
  2. Apply the Eliminate question
    Ask which factors the industry has long competed on that should be completely eliminated. Look for factors that no longer deliver value, that exist only because of competitive mimicry, or that were once important but are now taken for granted without contributing to buyer value.
    Pro tipTest elimination candidates by asking: If we removed this entirely, would our target noncustomers care? Often the answer is they would actually prefer it gone.
    WarningDo not confuse factors that current customers value highly with factors that matter to the mass market. Current customers may love complexity that repels noncustomers.
  3. Apply the Reduce question
    Identify factors where the industry has over-invested relative to actual buyer value. These are areas where companies over-serve customers in a race to match and beat competitors, raising costs without proportional buyer benefit.
    Pro tipCompare what your most demanding customers want with what the average buyer actually uses. The gap reveals reduction opportunities.
  4. Apply the Raise question
    Determine which existing factors should be raised well above the industry standard. These are typically factors where the industry has forced buyers to make compromises, accepting less than they really want.
    Pro tipLook at alternative industries for clues. What do beer drinkers or cocktail drinkers get that wine drinkers do not? That gap is a raise opportunity.
  5. Apply the Create question
    Discover entirely new factors that the industry has never offered. These come from understanding noncustomers and looking across alternative industries. Created factors are the source of new demand and the most powerful differentiators.
    Pro tip[yellow tail] created 'easy drinking,' 'ease of selection,' and 'fun and adventure,' none of which existed as competitive factors in the wine industry.
  6. Fill in the ERRC Grid
    Document all four actions in a simple 2x2 grid with Eliminate, Reduce, Raise, and Create as the four quadrants. Each quadrant should contain specific, concrete factors. The grid forces discipline and creates a one-page strategic action document that is easy to communicate.
    Pro tipIf your Eliminate and Reduce quadrants are empty but Raise and Create are full, you are inflating costs. Push harder on what to remove.
    WarningAn unbalanced grid where only Raise and Create are populated is the most common failure pattern. It leads to over-engineering and unsustainable cost structures.
  7. Validate the new value curve
    Plot your new offering on the Strategy Canvas alongside competitors. Check that the resulting value curve has focus (concentrated investment), divergence (clearly different shape), and a compelling tagline (a simple sentence capturing the strategy for buyers).
    Pro tipIf your new curve still follows the same shape as competitors, just shifted up or down, you have not achieved a blue ocean. Go back to the elimination and creation questions.

Checklist

Saved in your browser

Examples

3 cases
[yellow tail] ERRC Grid

Casella Wines applied all four actions to the U.S. wine industry. They eliminated enological terminology, aging quality distinctions, and above-the-line marketing. They reduced wine complexity, wine range, and vineyard prestige. They raised price versus budget wines and retail store involvement. They created three new factors: easy drinking, ease of selection, and fun and adventure.

OutcomeThe resulting product was a simple, fruit-forward wine with bold packaging, only two varieties, no jargon, and a fun Australian identity. It cost far less to produce (no aging, minimal range, no mass advertising) while commanding a price above budget wines. This simultaneously lowered costs and raised buyer value, the hallmark of a successful blue ocean move.
The wine industry's failure to apply Eliminate and Reduce

Traditional wineries in the U.S. continuously added complexity: more grape varieties, more enological distinctions, more vineyard heritage marketing, and more aging. Each competitor tried to outdo rivals on the same factors, driving up costs industry-wide. No major player questioned whether these factors actually mattered to the mass of potential wine drinkers.

OutcomeThe result was an industry where products became increasingly similar to each other (convergent value curves) despite massive investment in differentiation. Consumers selected based on price because they could not perceive meaningful differences. The industry's refusal to eliminate and reduce trapped it in a red ocean of bloody competition.
Retail employee engagement as a Created factor

[yellow tail] created an entirely new factor by making retail store employees into brand ambassadors. Instead of investing in mass media advertising (which they eliminated), they gave retail employees Australian outback clothing and a wine they personally felt comfortable recommending. This had never been a competitive factor in the wine industry.

OutcomeRetail employees became enthusiastic advocates because they were not intimidated by the product. Recommendations flowed naturally, creating organic word-of-mouth that no advertising budget could match. This created factor simultaneously drove sales and reduced marketing costs.

Common mistakes

5 traps
Only adding, never subtracting
The overwhelming bias in most organizations is to add features, services, and complexity. Companies fill in the Raise and Create quadrants easily but struggle with Eliminate and Reduce. This produces expensive, over-designed offerings that fail to attract the mass market.
Eliminating factors that current heavy users love
While the framework encourages elimination, you must be strategic about what you remove. The goal is to eliminate factors that noncustomers and the mass market do not value, not factors that your core profitable segment depends on. Understand the difference between niche demand and mass demand.
Treating the framework as a brainstorming exercise only
The ERRC Grid is not a whiteboard exercise to be filed away. It must translate into concrete product decisions, operational changes, and resource reallocation. Companies that enjoy the strategic conversation but do not commit to implementation waste the framework's potential.
Applying the four actions independently rather than as a system
Each action reinforces the others. Eliminating complexity makes creating simplicity possible. Reducing premium features funds investment in new factors. When companies treat each action as a standalone initiative run by different departments, the systemic value-cost breakthrough never materializes.
Failing to involve frontline employees
The ERRC Grid is designed to be accessible to managers at any level. When only senior strategists fill it in, they miss ground-level insights about what customers actually experience and what operational waste exists. Frontline employees often know exactly what should be eliminated.

Origin story

How this framework came to be

Kim and Mauborgne developed the Four Actions Framework after observing that companies attempting to create new market space consistently made the same mistake: they focused only on adding value (raising and creating) without questioning what could be removed. This led to bloated cost structures and over-engineered products that failed commercially despite being innovative.

The framework was refined through fieldwork with companies actively pursuing blue oceans. The researchers found that every successful blue ocean creation involved all four actions working in concert. The framework was formalized into a grid format (the Eliminate-Reduce-Raise-Create Grid) to force companies to explicitly document all four types of moves, preventing the natural bias toward only adding features.

Source

Traced to primary
Source · BOOK
Blue Ocean Strategy From Theory to Practice - W Chan Kim, Renée Mauborgne
W. Chan Kim, Renee Mauborgne · 2005
Open source →

Related frameworks

Browse all Strategy →