Skip to content

SKILL.md

Latest commit

 

History

History
190 lines (156 loc) · 11.2 KB

SKILL.md

File metadata and controls

190 lines (156 loc) · 11.2 KB
Raw
name ansoff-matrix
argument-hint [company or product line, its current core, and the growth outcome sought]
description Map evidence-backed growth options across the Ansoff Matrix with risk-rated sequencing. Use when the question is where the next tranche of growth comes from, and at what risk.
intent A researched Ansoff Matrix, not a brainstorm grid: market penetration, market development, product development, and diversification, each quadrant populated with candidate moves backed by documented signals, risk ratings that respect the matrix's risk gradient, and a recommended sequence with the assumption that breaks it.
type workflow
theme market-intelligence
best_for
Answering 'where does the next tranche of growth come from?' with evidence per option
Forcing diversification proposals to carry the evidence burden their risk demands
Sequencing growth moves so early wins fund the riskier bets
scenarios
Growth planning for next year — map our options across the Ansoff quadrants with evidence
The board wants a diversification story; pressure-test it against what the signals actually support
estimated_time 25-40 min per run

Ansoff Matrix (Evidence-Backed)

Purpose

Map a company's growth options across the Ansoff Matrix with evidence per quadrant: use or gather evidence → four quadrants with signals → risk-rated sequence → next-step options. The four quadrants — market penetration, market development, product development, diversification — organize one question: where does the next tranche of growth come from, and at what risk? This is a research instrument, not wishful whiteboarding: every candidate move must answer "what documented signal says this demand exists?" And the close is a sequence, because growth options compound — penetration funds development, and diversification bets the funding.

Input

Works best with: the company or product line seeking growth, its current core (who is served, with what, at what scale — the matrix's axes are defined relative to it), and the growth outcome and horizon on the table. Also useful: constraints (capital, capability, risk appetite), and any research in session — a landscape scan, five-forces read, or company-intel output lets the matrix organize evidence instead of gathering it.

Input supplied inline with the invocation — text after the skill name, a pasted context dump, or an appended ARGUMENTS: line — counts as answers already given. Use it against the question budget; don't re-ask.

Arriving empty-handed? That works too. The skill opens with at most 3 questions (core, outcome and horizon, constraints) and proceeds on labeled assumptions if they go unanswered.

Example invocation: Ansoff growth options for our field-service product line — core: dispatch software for mid-market HVAC firms, US. Outcome: +40% ARR in 24 months. Constraint: no acquisitions.

Key Concepts

  • Governing protocol: honors the autonomous-investigation contract — question budget of 3, search-plan gate, Fact/Inference/Assumption labels, Just Enough Mode (2-3 moves per quadrant), stable schema, 4-option Final Step.
  • The framework (Ansoff, 1957): growth options plotted on two axes — existing vs. new products, existing vs. new markets. Penetration (existing/existing) is the lowest-risk quadrant; diversification (new/new) the highest, because it abandons both anchors of proven demand at once.
  • The risk gradient is law. Penetration < market development ≈ product development < diversification. A diversification move rated "low risk" needs extraordinary evidence — and the gradient teaches why diversification proposals deserve the heaviest evidence burden and usually arrive with the lightest.
  • Signals, not wishes. Candidate moves come from documented signals: underserved-segment data, expressed demand (voice-of-customer-miner themes), competitor precedent, capability evidence. An empty diversification quadrant is an acceptable answer; an invented one is not.
  • Coaching vs. investigation — same map, different jobs: organic-growth-advisor is the Interactive sibling that diagnoses your growth constraint through questions (its Growth Path Matrix shares Ansoff's axes); this skill researches the evidence for each quadrant's options. Diagnose there, evidence here — they pair deliberately.
  • When NOT to use: feature-level prioritization (this is portfolio altitude — use feature-investment-advisor for a single build decision); no growth mandate or capacity — an options map without an owner is a poster.
  • Do-not-invent list: market sizes, adoption data, competitor results, demand claims. Where sizing matters, flag it for tam-sam-som-calculator rather than guessing.

Application

  1. Check session for existing evidence (landscape scan, five forces, company intel, VoC). Present → the matrix organizes it; search only gaps.
  2. Credit inline context, then ask only the unanswered questions (max 3):
    1. Which company or product line, and what is its current core?
    2. What growth outcome and horizon is on the table?
    3. Any constraints — capital, capability, risk appetite?
  3. If researching fresh, show the 3-bullet search plan — what you'll search per quadrant (segment data, expressed demand, competitor precedents, capability signals), source types, fact/inference separation. Continue unless revised.
  4. Populate the quadrants and emit the schema below exactly.

Output schema (do not reorder)

# Ansoff Growth Options: [Company / Product Line]
**As-of date:** | **Current core:** | **Growth outcome sought:**

## 1. Market Penetration (existing product, existing market — lowest risk)
- **[Candidate move]** — signal: [evidence, URL, label] — risk: [low/med/high, why]
- [2-3 moves]

## 2. Market Development (existing product, new market)
- **[Candidate move: segment, geography, or channel]** — signal: [evidence of underserved demand, URL, label] — risk: [rating, why]
- [2-3 moves]

## 3. Product Development (new product, existing market)
- **[Candidate move]** — signal: [expressed demand, VoC theme, competitor precedent, URL, label] — risk: [rating, why]
- [2-3 moves]

## 4. Diversification (new product, new market — highest risk)
- **[Candidate move]** — signal: [the extraordinary evidence this quadrant requires, URL, label] — risk: [rating, why]
- [1-2 moves; an empty quadrant is an acceptable answer]

## 5. Recommended Sequence (the "so what")
- **First:** [move] — because [evidence strength + funding logic]
- **Then:** [move] — funded/de-risked by the first
- **Not yet:** [the tempting move and why the evidence says wait]
- **The assumption that breaks this sequence:** [one line]

### Assumptions to Validate
- [Assumption 1] / [Assumption 2] / [Assumption 3]

A copy/paste fill-in version of this schema, with quality checks, lives in template.md.

Final Step (offer exactly 4 options)

  1. Size the top move with TAM/SAM/SOM (tam-sam-som-calculator) (Recommended)
  2. Pressure-test the sequence with a premortem
  3. Deep-dive the diversification quadrant's evidence
  4. Convert the first move into an opportunity solution tree (opportunity-solution-tree)

Accept 1, 2, 3, 4, 1 and 2, Verbose Mode, or a custom path.

Examples

A quadrant entry earning its place (fictional):

2. Market Development

  • Adjacent trade: plumbing contractors, same size band — signal: plumbing firms appear unprompted in 14% of our category's review-site mentions asking "does this work for plumbing?" — Fact ([review threads, URLs]); the two incumbents serving plumbing both gate scheduling behind enterprise tiers — Fact ([pricing pages]) — risk: medium — demand signal is real but second-hand; sales motion transfers, integrations don't fully.

The sequence close doing its job:

  • First: win-back campaign into the churned-but-reachable base (penetration) — strongest evidence, funds everything else, 1-quarter payback
  • Then: plumbing-contractor entry (market development) — de-risked by the penetration win's cash and case studies
  • Not yet: the IoT hardware bundle (diversification) — one analyst mention and founder enthusiasm is not extraordinary evidence
  • The assumption that breaks this sequence: churned customers left for fixable reasons; if win-loss shows they left the category, penetration is a dead first move and development leads.

See examples/sample.md for a complete worked matrix (fictional FSM-software market) with an honestly empty diversification quadrant and a sequence whose breaking assumption is named. examples/sample-industrial.md shows the opposite lesson: a populated diversification quadrant whose entry fails the evidence bar in writing.

Common Pitfalls

  • The brainstorm grid. Four quadrants of unsourced ambition. Every move answers "what signal says this demand exists?" or it doesn't ship — that single rule converts Ansoff from wall art into an instrument.
  • Risk-gradient denial. A diversification move rated low-risk on enthusiasm. The gradient is the framework's whole teaching: new product and new market means both anchors are gone.
  • Quadrant stuffing. Filling diversification because empty feels lazy. An honestly empty quadrant is a finding; a padded one is a liability with a deadline.
  • Options without sequence. A menu with no first move, no funding logic, no breaking assumption. Growth options compound — order is the strategy.
  • Sizing by vibe. Attaching invented market sizes to moves. The do-not-invent list routes sizing to the TAM/SAM/SOM calculator, where the math shows its work.

References