Solution Landscape Matrix

Purpose

Systematically assess how well existing approaches (products, workarounds, substitutes, non-consumption) satisfy a validated need's success criteria, to determine whether white space (innovation opportunity) or saturation (commodity market) exists.

When to use

A1.4 Step~5 (Solution Landscape Review). Critical distinction: this analyses the need-satisfaction landscape (how do people address this need today?), not the product competitive landscape (who are our product's competitors?). The latter is A3.

Output

Solution Landscape Matrix (table), gap analysis narrative, white space / saturation determination with evidence, summary statement.

Inputs

• A1.3 success criteria (Functional, Emotional, Social; P0/P1/P2 prioritisation)
• Research on existing approaches (≥3 sources: review sites, industry reports, user interviews)
• User satisfaction data (ratings, reviews, complaints)

Procedure

1. Inventory existing approaches. Identify all ways users currently address the need: commercial products/services, manual workarounds, substitutes, partial solutions, non-consumption (tolerating the pain). Target: 5–15 approaches across categories.
2. Construct the matrix. Rows: existing approaches. Columns: A1.3 success criteria (P0 functional, P0 emotional, P0 social, plus P1/P2 if relevant). Cells: adequacy score per criterion: itemize
3. 3 = Well met (approach satisfies criterion)
4. 2 = Partially met (addresses but significant limitations)
5. 1 = Poorly met (inadequate)
6. 0 = Not met (fails to satisfy) itemize
7. Score each cell with evidence. Cite user satisfaction ratings, feature analysis, review themes, interview quotes. Evidence prevents wishful downscoring (“competitors are bad because we want white space”).
8. Overlay adoption data. Add column: adoption/usage level for each approach (High/Medium/Low/Emerging + user count if available). High-satisfaction + high-adoption = saturation signal.
9. Identify gaps. itemize
10. Criterion gaps: P0 criteria scored ≤1 across all approaches
11. Segment gaps: Solutions adequate for some user segments but not others
12. Context gaps: Solutions work in some contexts but fail in critical design contexts (from Step~3)
13. Trade-off gaps: Users forced to choose between conflicting attributes itemize
14. Determine white space or saturation. White space: P0 criteria not well-met (≤2) by any approach; user satisfaction <4.0/5.0. Saturation: P0 criteria well-met (3) by ≥2 approaches; user satisfaction ≥4.0/5.0; adequate adoption. Partial white space: Saturated for mainstream segments/contexts; white space for specific underserved segments or critical contexts.
15. Write white space or saturation statement. 2–3 sentence summary: what specific gap remains (or doesn't), for whom, in which contexts.

Quality criteria

• ≥5 current approaches assessed across categories
• Adequacy scores evidence-based (not assumed)
• ≥3 research sources (not single-source)
• White space claim supported by unmet P0 evidence
• Saturation claim supported by high satisfaction + adoption data

Common errors

• Wishful white space — downscoring competitors to justify Pursue
• Binary thinking — “saturated or not” without segment/context analysis
• Single-source research — one review site as entire landscape
• Confusing adoption barriers with solution inadequacy — “40% don't use any tool” may reflect awareness/willingness gaps, not product gaps

Theoretical basis

Blue Ocean Strategy (Kim & Mauborgne, 2005) for market reconstruction; Outcome-Driven Innovation (Ulwick, 2005) for importance-satisfaction gap analysis.