Gap Analysis
Evaluate product and feature ideas using structured frameworks. Produce actionable recommendations with evidence.
1. Gather Context
Collect before proceeding. Do not analyze with incomplete information.
| Input | Required Information | |-------|---------------------| | Idea | Problem solved, proposed solution | | Users | Target segment, estimated count, current behavior | | Alternatives | Existing solutions, workarounds, competitors | | Success criteria | Measurable outcomes defining success | | Constraints | Budget, timeline, team capabilities, technology limits |
Ask clarifying questions for any missing inputs.
2. DVFI Assessment
Score each dimension 1-5. Require evidence for each score.
| Dimension | Core Question | Evidence Sources | |-----------|---------------|------------------| | Desirability | Do users want this? | Problem frequency, pain severity, active solution-seeking, willingness to pay | | Viability | Does the business case work? | Unit economics (LTV:CAC ≥3:1), margin structure, strategic alignment | | Feasibility | Can the team build this? | Technical capability, resource availability, timeline realism | | Integrity | Should this exist? | Ethics, regulatory compliance, societal impact, brand risk |
Scoring Scale
| Score | Criteria | |-------|----------| | 5 | Strong evidence, low risk, clear path forward | | 4 | Solid evidence, minor concerns with known mitigations | | 3 | Mixed signals, material uncertainties requiring validation | | 2 | Weak evidence, significant concerns, major unknowns | | 1 | Red flags, likely blockers, insufficient evidence to proceed |
3. Deep-Dive Triggers
Apply additional frameworks when DVFI scores indicate risk.
| Condition | Action | Reference | |-----------|--------|-----------| | Desirability < 4 | Run validation methods (MVP types, interviews, JTBD) | references/validation.md | | Feasibility < 4 | Apply TELOS framework (Technical, Economic, Legal, Operational, Schedule) | references/feasibility.md | | Viability < 4 | Calculate TAM/SAM/SOM with bottom-up validation | references/market-sizing.md |
4. Risk Assessment
Calculate: Risk Score = Likelihood (1-5) × Impact (1-5)
| Score | Level | Required Action | |-------|-------|-----------------| | 1-4 | Low | Document and monitor | | 5-12 | Medium | Define mitigation plan before proceeding | | 13-25 | High | Resolve or accept at executive level before proceeding |
Evaluate risks in each category: Market, Technical, Financial, Operational, Legal/Regulatory, Competitive.
5. Prioritization
Use when comparing multiple opportunities. Default to RICE scoring.
RICE = (Reach × Impact × Confidence) / Effort
| Factor | Definition | Values | |--------|------------|--------| | Reach | Users affected per quarter | Actual count | | Impact | Effect magnitude | 3=Massive, 2=High, 1=Medium, 0.5=Low, 0.25=Minimal | | Confidence | Estimate certainty | 100%=High, 80%=Medium, 50%=Low | | Effort | Work required | Person-months |
For alternative frameworks (ICE, Kano, MoSCoW), see references/prioritization.md.
6. Competitive Analysis
Include when competitors exist in the space.
| Gap Type | Definition | Strategic Implication | |----------|------------|----------------------| | Advantage | We lead | Defend and extend | | Parity | Competitors have, we lack | Close gap to compete | | Opportunity | No one has | First-mover potential | | Investment | Requires major effort | Evaluate ROI carefully |
Map features using: ● Full support, ◐ Partial, ○ None
7. Recommendation
Conclude with one of four verdicts.
| Verdict | Criteria | Next Action | |---------|----------|-------------| | GO | All DVFI ≥ 4, no high risks | Proceed to implementation planning | | CONDITIONAL GO | Mixed scores with addressable gaps | Proceed after specified conditions met | | PIVOT | Core value exists, current approach flawed | Redesign with specific changes | | NO GO | Blockers in ≥2 dimensions or unmitigable high risk | Archive learnings, do not proceed |
Every recommendation includes:
- Key findings summary (3-5 bullets)
- Critical assumptions that must hold true
- Specific next steps with owners
- Success metrics to track post-launch
Output Format
## Gap Analysis: [Idea Name]
### Executive Summary
[Verdict] - [2-sentence rationale with key evidence]
### DVFI Assessment
| Dimension | Score | Evidence | Concerns |
|-----------|-------|----------|----------|
| Desirability | X/5 | [specific data points] | [or "None"] |
| Viability | X/5 | [specific data points] | [or "None"] |
| Feasibility | X/5 | [specific data points] | [or "None"] |
| Integrity | X/5 | [specific data points] | [or "None"] |
### Key Risks
| Risk | Score | Mitigation |
|------|-------|------------|
| [Risk 1] | L×I=X | [Specific action] |
### Competitive Position
[Include only if competitors exist]
### Recommendation
**[GO / CONDITIONAL GO / PIVOT / NO GO]**
Conditions (if applicable): [specific requirements]
### Next Steps
1. [Action] - Owner: [name] - By: [date/milestone]
Reference Thresholds
Product-Market Fit
| Metric | Pass Threshold | |--------|----------------| | Sean Ellis Test | ≥40% "very disappointed" | | LTV:CAC ratio | ≥3:1 | | DAU/MAU (SaaS) | ≥20% | | NPS | ≥30 (acceptable), ≥50 (strong) |
Validation Tests
| Method | Pass Threshold | |--------|----------------| | Landing page signup | ≥10% conversion | | Pre-order/deposit | ≥5% conversion | | User interviews | 8/10 express strong intent | | Fake door test | ≥3x baseline CTR |
Failure Pattern Data (CB Insights)
| Cause | Frequency | |-------|-----------| | No market need | 42% | | Lack of product-market fit | 34% | | Overall new product failure rate | 70-80% |