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%