stanislavnianko Opportunity Mapping
Part of the discovery-phase skill pack ·
synthesisgroup · readsdiscovery-context.md(runprofile-builderfirst if missing).
Turns the top pain points into opportunities and forces multiple candidate solutions before the team locks in. Two modes depending on whether the client already proposed a solution.
Step 1 — Read discovery context + insights
Read discovery-context.md (section 2. Product / Initiative → Solution already proposed by client — drives mode selection) and insight-matrix.md (anchors the tree against ranked insights).
If discovery-context.md is missing, ask the BA inline: "did the client propose a specific solution, or are we generating cold?" — picks Generate-mode vs Validate-mode; tag output [ASSUMED] on uncertainty. If insight-matrix.md is missing, ask: "name the top 1–3 pains in one sentence each" — or proceed with every leaf tagged [NO-EVIDENCE-ANCHOR]. Never block; recommend profile-builder / insight-synthesis for high-stakes work.
Step 2 — Pick mode
| Section 2 says | Mode |
|---|---|
| No solution proposed | Generate mode — open brainstorm of solutions |
| Solution proposed by client | Validate mode — frame the proposed solution as ONE candidate, generate 2-3 alternatives, force comparison |
Tell the BA which mode is active and why. In Validate mode, this skill's job is partly political: the team needs to walk into the proposal/SoW with evidence either supporting the client's solution OR proposing a better one — silence equals "yes" to the client's existing idea.
Step 3 — State the desired outcome
One sentence: metric + direction + timeframe. Pull from problem-canvas.md success signal, sharpened with insight-matrix evidence.
"Reduce time-to-first-value from 3 days to under 1 hour, this quarter."
Step 4 — Hang the opportunities
Each top-3 pain from insight-matrix becomes an opportunity branch. In user language, not solution language.
- ❌ "Add bulk import"
- ✅ "I spend 2 hours/day re-typing data from CSVs"
Step 5 — Pick one opportunity to attack first
Don't attack all three in one cycle. Pick based on:
- Strongest evidence (frequency × intensity from insight-matrix)
- Highest strategic fit (per
discovery-context.mdsection 1 Stage) - Cheapest to test
Defer the others to a "next cycle" section.
Step 6 — Generate candidate solutions
Generate 2-4 candidate solutions for the chosen opportunity. Force diversity along these dimensions:
- Incremental — extend client's existing product
- Radical — would require new infrastructure, ML, integrations
- Buy / integrate — wrap an existing tool, pay vendor, OSS
- Do-nothing baseline — better docs, scripts, contractors, no software
In Validate mode, the client's pre-proposed solution becomes one of these. Don't rig the others to lose — generate honestly.
Step 7 — Score solutions
| Solution | Bet size (S/M/L) | Time to build | Problem-fit confidence (H/M/L) | Build feasibility (H/M/L) | Aligned with client priorities (per profile) |
|---|
The last column is critical for outsourcing. A radical solution might fit the problem perfectly but blow up the engagement timeline.
Step 8 — Pick direction
One sentence justifying the chosen solution vs runner-ups, with citations to insight-matrix and competitive-scan (substitute risk).
In Validate mode, if the chosen direction is NOT the client's pre-proposed solution: name the gap explicitly and prepare the BA for the conversation. Pre-draft 2 sentences the BA can say to the client.
Step 9 — Design 1-3 validation experiments
Each experiment must have:
- A clear test (concierge, landing page, clickable, paper prototype)
- A leading metric
- A kill criterion — what result means "don't build"
Experiments are days, not weeks. If an experiment needs >1 week, it's a feasibility-spike (validation group).
Output
./discovery/opportunity-tree.md per ./template.md.
Append to _log.md: [opportunity-mapping | YYYY-MM-DD] mode: <generate/validate>; opp: <one-line>; chosen: <one-line>; experiments: <count>.
Anti-patterns
- One solution per opportunity. If you generated one, you didn't brainstorm. Force 3+.
- All solutions same bet size. All-incremental = anchored on status quo; all-radical = ignoring delivery realities.
- Rigging Validate-mode against the client. Generate the alternatives honestly. If the client's solution is best, document why; don't manufacture loss.
- Experiments that can only confirm. A good experiment can produce "no". If every outcome leads to "build it", you haven't designed an experiment.
- Attacking 3 pains at once. Sequence them.