ansoff-matrix

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.

1. Credit inline context, then ask only the unanswered questions (max 3):
2. Which company or product line, and what is its current core?
3. What growth outcome and horizon is on the table?
4. Any constraints — capital, capability, risk appetite?
5. 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.

1. 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

• `organic-growth-advisor` (Interactive) — the coaching

sibling: diagnoses which growth path fits your constraint; this skill evidences the options

• `autonomous-investigation` (Workflow) — the governing protocol
• `intelligence-collection-disciplines` (Component) — signal sources per quadrant
• `porters-five-forces` (Workflow) — the profit-pool read that feeds this analysis
• `tam-sam-som-calculator` (Component) — sizes the moves
• `voice-of-customer-miner` (Workflow) — expressed-demand signals for product development
• `opportunity-solution-tree` (Interactive) — structures the first move's execution
• H. Igor Ansoff, "Strategies for Diversification" (Harvard Business Review, 1957)
• Adapted from market-intelligence/ansoff-matrix-prompt.md in the

https://github.com/deanpeters/product-manager-prompts repo.