/ansoff-matrix

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`](../company-intel/SKILL.md) 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`](../autonomous-investigation/SKILL.md)

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`](../voice-of-customer-miner/SKILL.md) 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`](../organic-growth-advisor/SKILL.md) 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`](../feature-investment-advisor/SKILL.md) 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`](../tam-sam-som-calculator/SKILL.md) 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)

~~~markdown

Ansoff Growth Options: [Company / Product Line]

**As-of date:** | **Current core:** | **Growth outcome sought:**

1. Market Penetration (existin