brainstorming
brainstorming
You MUST use this before any creative work - creating features, building components, adding functionality, modifying behavior, or planning anything new, in software or out of it (a talk, a business, a renovation).
ansoff-matrixAnsoff Matrix — 4-quadrant framework for growth options: market penetration, market/product development, and diversification. Use when evaluating growth bets, prioritizing investment across quadrants, or weighing the risk ladder of each move.
Independent GitHub snapshot · Automated classification · Original documentation governs
Igor Ansoff's product/market matrix for evaluating growth options. Forces explicit choice between four growth bets of increasing risk.
| Existing Products | New Products | |
|---|---|---|
| Existing Markets | Market Penetration (lowest risk) | Product Development |
| New Markets | Market Development | Diversification (highest risk) |
Sell more of what we have to people we know.
Tactics:
Risk profile: Lowest. You know the product + market.
Investment: ~30-50% of growth investment for most companies.
When dominant: Early-stage; high-growth market with share to take.
Take what works to a new market.
Tactics:
Risk profile: Medium. Product known; market unknown.
Investment: ~20-30%.
When dominant: Product-market fit established in initial segment; proven by reference customers; ready to scale.
Build something new for people we know.
Tactics:
Risk profile: Medium. Market known; product unknown.
Investment: ~15-25%.
When dominant: Captive audience with related JTBDs; distribution advantage; brand permission to extend.
New thing for new people.
Tactics:
Risk profile: Highest. Both axes unknown.
Investment: ~5-15% (or 0% — most companies should not diversify).
When dominant: Few situations justify high diversification. Usually: mature core business with cash, declining core business needing pivot, or genuine adjacent opportunity with shared capability.
Before scoring the growth options, confirm these inputs. If any is unknown or vague, ASK — do not assume:
Stop rule: ask only the 2-3 that most change the output. If the user says "just draft it," proceed and list your assumptions at the top of the artifact.
Most Ansoff confusion comes from vague boundaries.
For each initiative, classify into a quadrant. Be honest:
Per initiative:
Most companies cluster in Q1 + one other. Pure diversification (Q4) is rare; usually disguised market or product development.
Target mix depends on stage:
If you're 90% Q1, you're not growing strategically. If you're 40% Q4, you're betting the company.
ansoff_growth_scorer.pyScore each initiative; surface mix; flag risky concentration.
python3 project-management/strategy-frameworks/ansoff-matrix/scripts/ansoff_growth_scorer.py \
--input initiatives.json --format markdown
| Different... | New market? |
|---|---|
| Geography | Yes (regulation, culture, language, channel) |
| Industry vertical | Yes |
| Company size band (SMB → ENT) | Usually yes |
| Use case (same persona) | Usually no |
| Buyer persona | Yes |
| Pricing tier (free vs paid) | Usually no |
If you'd need a different sales motion or different channels, it's a new market.
| Different... | New product? |
|---|---|
| New SKU / module | Yes |
| New pricing tier of same product | No |
| New feature in existing product | No |
| Significantly different value prop | Yes |
| Different underlying tech | Yes |
If you'd need a different roadmap and different success metrics, it's a new product.
When diversification fails:
references/ansoff-matrix-deep.md — quadrant tactics, examples, risk patternsreferences/growth-strategy-patterns.md — stage-based mixes, common pitfallsproject-management/strategy-frameworks/business-model-canvas — operational view of each quadrantproject-management/strategy-frameworks/swot-analysis — strategic contextproject-management/strategy-frameworks/porters-five-forces — industry analysisc-level-advisor/ceo-advisor — strategic contextc-level-advisor/cmo-advisor — Q1/Q2 marketing contextc-level-advisor/cpo-advisor — Q3 product development context