iDWong Product Strategy Frameworks
Scope: the front half of product decisions — what to build, where to grow, why we win, how we make money. Output is a strategy document, not a requirements document. Once direction is settled and it is time to write requirements, hand off to
pm-prd-writer/pm-prd-spec.
Language: reference files are the original English sources, except backcasting-forwardcasting.md
which is this library's own Chinese content (absorbed from the retired product-strategy-analyzer).
Match the user's language in your output — if the user writes Chinese, deliver the document in Chinese
while reading the English references.
Step 1: Pick the framework first
When the user says "do a strategy analysis", do not ask which framework they want — they don't know. Select by the question they are actually asking:
| What the user is really asking | Framework | Reference |
|---|---|---|
| How does this business actually work / where does money come from | Business Model Canvas (9 blocks) | references/business-model.md |
| Are the assumptions behind this new idea sound (fast) | Lean Canvas (9 boxes, assumption-first) | references/lean-canvas.md |
| New product needing both strategic clarity and a business model | Startup Canvas | references/startup-canvas.md |
| What is our overall strategy (exec-ready) | Product Strategy Canvas (9 sections) | references/product-strategy.md |
| Team has no direction / need one north-star sentence | Product Vision | references/product-vision.md |
| Why us and not the alternative | Value Proposition (JTBD, 6 parts) | references/value-proposition.md |
| Where do we stand (internal + external sweep) | SWOT | references/swot-analysis.md |
| What macro variables exist / risks of entering this country | PESTLE | references/pestle-analysis.md |
| Is this industry worth entering / who captures the profit | Porter's Five Forces | references/porters-five-forces.md |
| Which direction do we grow next | Ansoff Matrix (2×2) | references/ansoff-matrix.md |
| How much do we charge / how do we tier | Pricing Strategy | references/pricing-strategy.md |
| What are our revenue options and their risks | Monetization Strategy (3-5 options) | references/monetization-strategy.md |
| Will this direction still exist in 5-10 years / can we get there from here | 双向推演（倒推法 + 顺推法） | references/backcasting-forwardcasting.md（中文） |
The three canvases are the easiest to confuse. Use this:
| Fits | Emphasis | |
|---|---|---|
| Business Model Canvas | Established business, corporate strategy, investor materials | Describes how things run today |
| Lean Canvas | Early idea, speed over completeness | Problems and assumptions |
| Startup Canvas | New product, needs both | Strategic clarity + business model — default for new products |
Step 2: Workflows
Full step-by-step orchestration lives in references/workflows/. Four composed flows:
Workflow A — Full strategy document (most common)
references/workflows/strategy.md, using product-strategy.md + product-vision.md.
Gather context → walk all 9 canvas sections → generate document → offer next steps.
Give specific content, never generic advice. For early-stage products some sections are hypotheses —
label them as hypotheses, do not present them as conclusions.
Workflow B — Macro environment scan (before entering a new market)
references/workflows/market-scan.md.
pestle-analysis.md (external variables) → porters-five-forces.md (industry attractiveness) →
swot-analysis.md (fold external findings back into internal position).
Output: enter / don't enter / enter-if, plus the unknowns that must be researched first.
PESTLE and SWOT are complementary, not redundant — macro vs. micro. Run PESTLE first and drop its conclusions straight into SWOT's O/T quadrants.
Workflow C — Pricing and monetization
references/workflows/pricing.md.
monetization-strategy.md first (3-5 revenue options with audience fit, unit economics, risks, validation
experiments) → once a direction is chosen, pricing-strategy.md for price points and tiers.
Never skip monetization and go straight to pricing. Settle "what we charge for" before "how much" — reversed, you produce an elegant price for the wrong business model.
Workflow D — Value proposition
references/workflows/value-proposition.md, using value-proposition.md.
One JTBD six-part statement per segment — never one generic version. Cross-check the "Alternatives"
part against pm-competitor-deconstructor output rather than imagining competitors.
For outward-facing copy (taglines, hero sections) hand off to pm-growth-marketing.
Workflow E — Direction stress test (backcasting + forwardcasting)
references/backcasting-forwardcasting.md (Chinese).
Search competitors and market → backcast from the 5-10 year end state → forwardcast from today →
collide the two into one of four verdicts (both work / right but not yet / dangerous short-term window / drop it).
Run this before writing a full strategy for a genuinely new direction, or after as a stress test. The single most useful question in it: does this product still exist in the end state? A direction that fails that one doesn't need a prettier roadmap.
Quality checklist
Before delivering a strategy document:
- Trade-offs section is non-empty — states what we will NOT do and who we will NOT serve. A strategy with only YES and no NO is not a strategy
- Vision is one memorable, emotional sentence — not "become the industry-leading provider of…"
- Every segment has its own value proposition; no single generic version papering over all of them
- Hypotheses and conclusions are labeled separately; "no real moat yet" is an acceptable answer for an early product — better than inventing one
- Metrics section separates north star / input metrics / guardrails, rather than listing parallel KPIs
- Defensibility names the type (network effects, data, brand, switching costs, economies of scale) — not just "better UX"
- Top 3 strategic risks are things that could actually invalidate the strategy, not generic "competition intensifies"
- Framework fits the question — re-check against the Step 1 table
Fallbacks
- Severely insufficient input (can't even state what the product does): do not produce a hollow filled-in framework. Output the 4 blanks that would unblock you
- User names a framework that clearly doesn't fit: do it their way first, and add one line — "this framework answers X, you're asking Y, and Z fits Y better" — then let them decide
- Asked for specific numbers (market size, price points) with no data: give the calculation method and formula, leave the number as a blank. Do not invent numbers
- Cross-framework conclusions contradict each other: surface the contradiction as a finding and state each one's preconditions. Do not force a reconciliation
Flow output path: when run as pm-master stage -2, write the strategy document to
prd/strategy/strategy.md (the flow's gate globs prd/strategy/strategy*.md). Standalone runs may write anywhere the user asks.
Handoffs
Upstream — pm-master stage -2 of the single 13-stage lifecycle flow (before market research);
pm-advisory-board (after the board judges a direction worth pursuing, come here to write it up).
Downstream — pm-gtm (strategy → market entry, ICP, beachhead); pm-growth-marketing (value prop → positioning, naming, north star);
pm-market-research (TAM/SAM/SOM data to backfill); pm-roadmap-planner (strategy → roadmap);
pm-okr-designer (metrics section → quarterly OKRs); pm-prd-writer / pm-prd-spec (direction settled → write requirements).
Handoff summary format (≤10 lines): framework used / core conclusion / what we explicitly won't do / open hypotheses / recommended next step.