---
id: "question-matrix-adoption-gap"
type: "open-question"
source_timestamps: ["§ How the Company Gained Buy-In"]
tags: ["adoption-metrics", "tool-comparison"]
related: ["entity-matrix", "entity-d-star", "claim-people-issues-drive-failure"]
resolution_path: "Investigate the specific workflow disruptions caused by Matrix and compare the psychological barriers of automating creative/brand decisions versus logistical/sales decisions."
sources: ["adoption"]
sourceVaultSlug: "hbr-seg-adoption"
originDay: 9
articleStem: "hbr-edu-41-french-spirits-employee-buy-in"
sourceUrl: "https://hbr.org/2025/12/how-a-french-spirits-company-created-employee-buy-in-for-ai"
sourceTitle: "How a French Spirits Company Created Employee Buy-In for AI"
---
# Why Did Matrix Achieve Lower Adoption Than D-STAR?

The text notes that [[entity-d-star]] achieved 85% adoption, while [[entity-matrix]] reached 60–70% because it was 'more disruptive to traditional marketing workflows' and challenged managers' 'emotional attachment' to brands. It leaves open the question of whether different change-management strategies are required for highly analytical tasks (sales routing) versus highly creative/emotional tasks (brand marketing).

**Resolution path.** Investigate the specific workflow disruptions caused by Matrix and compare the psychological barriers of automating creative/brand decisions versus logistical/sales decisions.

**Enrichment perspective.** Marketing scholars argue brand stewardship and creative intuition retain value that resists full quantitative optimization; a counter-view even questions whether maximal adoption is desirable for inherently creative/relationship-based decisions. This connects the gap to marketing-mix-modeling literature and the broader debate over data-driven overrides of brand managers' intuition — a within-case illustration that resistance is not uniform and that tool characteristics, not just change management, shape adoption ([[claim-people-issues-drive-failure]]).