To give managers an agreed framework. Managers had no widely agreed framework to help them define a corporate brand identity and align its elements "so that they come together as an entity". For Urde, this is a serious problem in practice and a gap in research. It may derail brand building and in the end put the whole corporate strategy at risk (Urde, 2013, p. 742). The few frameworks that did exist for corporate brands covered only single aspects, such as alignment, or gave broad overviews that managers could not easily put to use (Urde, 2013, p. 748). The matrix is his answer, a guide to the "describing, defining and aligning" of corporate brand identity (Urde, 2013, p. 742).

To give corporate brands a tool of their own. Managers of product brands can draw on many frameworks that are based on theory and tested in practice. Managers of corporate brands, by contrast, "are not equipped with a comparable toolbox". They usually have to borrow frameworks made for product brands or use improvised hybrid models, although their situation is quite different (Urde, 2013, pp. 742–743). A corporate brand has an organisation behind it, and this shows in the way people talk. A company typically speaks of itself as "we", and others speak of it as "they", while everyone calls a product brand "it". Mission, vision, core values, culture and competences are vital parts of a corporate brand. Yet frameworks for product brands often simply leave them out (Urde, 2013, p. 743).

To keep pace with the rise of corporate brands. Corporate brands have become more important for strategy, in research as well as in practice. Many companies want to move from selling branded products to offering broader "customer solutions", with the corporate brand in the limelight (Urde, 2013, p. 743).

The matrix has nine elements in three rows. The bottom row is internal and covers the company itself, with its mission and vision, its culture and its competences. Urde calls these three elements "the bedrock" of the identity's inner side (Urde, 2013, p. 751). The top row is external and faces customers and other stakeholders. It holds value proposition, relationships and position, which strongly influence the brand's image and reputation (Urde, 2013, pp. 751, 753). The middle row links inside and outside. It holds expression, personality and, at the centre, the brand core (Urde, 2013, pp. 751–752).

• Everything echoes the core: the arrows from the centre show that all elements are linked. In a coherent identity, "the core reflects all elements, and every element reflects the core" (Urde, 2013, p. 751).
• Three types of value: the bottom row holds the values of the organisation, and the centre holds the core values that sum up the identity. The top row holds the values meant for customers and for other groups with an interest in the company, which Urde calls non-customer stakeholders (Urde, 2013, p. 751).
• Two ways in: managers can start from the outside, with external elements such as the value proposition. Urde calls this market-oriented. Or they can start from the inside, with the internal elements and the core, which he calls brand-oriented. A mix of both also works (Urde, 2013, p. 751).
• Pairs that should match: arrows in the figure mark key links between pairs of elements. Culture should match relationships, and personality should match expression. Competences should fit the value proposition, and the position should fit the mission and vision (Urde, 2013, pp. 752–753, 758–759).

The three-by-three matrix builds on the logic and structure of an earlier model, the Market and Brand Orientation Framework, which separates internal, core and external parts (Urde et al., 2011, cited in Urde, 2013, pp. 745, 750). For the names of the nine elements, Urde used established terms from the literature and tested each draft version in the case companies. Competences became an element because the managers suggested it (Urde, 2013, pp. 750, 757).

Urde sees the matrix as a management tool for everyone who works on the corporate brand identity. His guiding questions are meant to start the discussion of each element (Urde, 2013, p. 753). He used the matrix in workshops with managers from different levels and functions in three companies (Urde, 2013, p. 757). Each case shows one of the three tasks the matrix is made for (Urde, 2013, pp. 742, 749).

• Describe: at ABB, the matrix was used to describe the existing corporate brand identity. The brand platform was a primary source, alongside other company documents, executive interviews and workshops. The result was a clear overview that improved the general understanding of the ABB brand and its business relevance for the product areas (Urde, 2013, pp. 754–755).
• Define: at Cargotec, the mother brand was little known compared with its three daughter brands Hiab, Kalmar and McGregor. The plan was to "let the daughters define the mother's identity". Managers first used the matrix to define each daughter brand and then discussed one combined matrix for Cargotec. An internal survey with more than 3,000 respondents rated the proposed elements, and an external survey of customers and other stakeholders led to the final adjustments (Urde, 2013, pp. 755–756).
• Align: at Trelleborg, the matrix helped to check whether the core and the outer elements fit together and to find gaps between them (Urde, 2013, p. 756).

In some workshops, participants described each element twice, once as it is today and once as they want it to be in the future. This pointed to possible gaps between the current and the ideal identity and started discussions on how to close them (Urde, 2013, p. 757).

Later, Urde and Stephen Greyser filled in the matrix for the Nobel Prize. They started with the core: the promise "For the benefit of mankind" and three core values, discovery, excellence and engagement for higher ideals. Then they worked through the linked pairs: mission and vision with position, competences with value proposition, personality with expression, and culture with relationships. They call these pairs the strategy diagonal, the competition diagonal, the communication horizontal and the interaction vertical (Urde & Greyser, 2014, pp. 32–33).

Urde's case work shows four stumbling blocks in practice (Urde, 2013, pp. 756–758):

• Thinking in product brands: the branding experience inside a company often comes from work on product brands (Urde, 2013, p. 758). In the workshops, managers' thinking was shaped by best practice and by examples from image-driven product branding. So the workshops began by discussing how product and corporate branding differ, and only then introduced the matrix (Urde, 2013, p. 757).
• Leaving the brand to marketing: the corporate brand was seen as mainly the job of the marketing and branding department. Managers knew this was not ideal, but it was how things worked in practice. To counter this, the workshops brought together managers from different levels and functions (Urde, 2013, p. 757).
• Hollow values: in practice, the promise and the core values are often dismissed as "fine words" with little or no business relevance (Urde, 2013, p. 756). In the workshops, participants saw some official values as merely "fine words", while they backed others with examples from their own work. Such "hollow values" have weak roots inside the company, or none at all, and lack credibility with customers and other stakeholders. They need to be reviewed and revised (Urde, 2013, p. 757).
• Seen as a head-office project: in any major branding process, management fears that the organisation will ignore the result as "yet another HQ initiative". At Cargotec, staff were therefore involved in the process, and the results were shared widely on the intranet to win acceptance and commitment (Urde, 2013, p. 756).

• Kapferer's Brand Identity Prism: Urde credits the prism with moving the focus from image to identity. Its culture facet and its split into inner and outer facets make it a bridge between product brand and corporate brand models. But the prism puts weight on self-image and reflection, which describe what customers say to themselves through their choice of brand and what others think of that choice. This is why Urde finds it better suited to product brands than to corporate brands (Urde, 2013, pp. 745–746). In the CBIM, self-image and reflection apply to customers and to other stakeholders. They should be considered early, when the corporate brand identity is being defined (Urde, 2013, p. 753).
• Product-brand tools: models such as the Brand Wheel and Unilever's Brand Key were mainly designed for image-driven product brands. They leave out the internal side of the brand, and this seriously limits their use for defining a corporate brand identity (Urde, 2013, p. 745).
• Corporate brand frameworks: the AC3ID Test and the Corporate Branding Tool Kit focus on aligning different identities, not on defining a corporate brand identity (Urde, 2013, p. 747). Urde finds Aaker's Brand Identity Planning Model too general to work as a management tool for corporate brands (Urde, 2013, p. 746).
• Use alongside product-brand models: the CBIM is meant for cases where the corporate brand is what is being analysed. For the identity of a product brand, "several established models are available", and the CBIM can be used together with them (Urde, 2013, p. 759).