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% |