Structured Opportunity Description

Purpose

Document a validated opportunity in a standardized, concise format covering need statement, evidence summary, user context, market landscape, and preliminary strategic assessment—enabling consistent evaluation, prioritization, and governance decisions across multiple opportunities. The Structured Opportunity Description (SOD) is the A1.1 deliverable that allows I2 Governance to decide: Advance to A1.2 (detailed research), defer, or kill.

The template balances brevity (readable in 10-15 minutes) with completeness (sufficient information for informed go/no-go decision), preventing both information overload and under-specification.

When to Use

Use SOD when:

• Completing A1.1—need to document opportunity for governance review
• Managing portfolio of opportunities—need consistent format for comparison
• Communicating opportunity to stakeholders who lack context (executives, cross-functional partners)
• Archiving opportunity for future consideration (defer now, revisit in 6-12 months)

Prerequisites

• A1.1 Steps 1-3 completed: Signal collection, validation, synthesis
• Evidence: Secondary research, expert interviews, early user conversations (5-10 minimum)
• Template: SOD template (provided below)
• Writer: A1.1 lead (may collaborate with product owner, strategist)
• Time: 2-4 hours to write, 1-2 hours for team review/refinement

Quality Criteria

Excellent SOD demonstrates:

1. Clarity: Readable in 10-15 minutes by stakeholder unfamiliar with opportunity
2. Evidence-based: All claims grounded in data (quotes, research, market data)
3. Specificity: Avoids vague language (“users want better experience”)—names user types, contexts, needs
4. Strategic framing: Connects user need to business opportunity (market size, fit, capability)
5. Honest uncertainty: Acknowledges what's unknown, risks, assumptions
6. Actionable: Clear recommendation + next steps (not just information dump)
7. Template adherence: Follows standard structure (enables cross-opportunity comparison)

Template Structure

Structured Opportunity Description Template (4-6 pages):

tcolorbox[colback=blue!5,colframe=blue!50!black,title=Structured Opportunity Description Template]

1. Opportunity Name and Tagline

• Name: Memorable, descriptive (2-5 words)
• Tagline: One sentence capturing essence (who needs what)

2. Need Statement (1 paragraph)

• Who (user type), What (goal/outcome), Current Obstacle (why can't they achieve it), Consequence (impact of unmet need)
• Format: “[User type] needs to [goal/outcome] but faces [obstacle], resulting in [negative consequence].”

3. Evidence Summary (0.5 page)

• Prevalence: How many users experience this need?
• Intensity: How painful/valuable is it?
• Sources: Where did signals come from? (Market research, user interviews, operational data, expert input—with counts)
• Key quotes/data points: 2-3 compelling evidence snippets

4. User Context (0.5 page)

• User characteristics: Role, expertise, demographics (if relevant)
• Context: When/where does need arise? (workflow, situation, frequency)
• Current behavior: What do users do today? (workarounds, alternatives, coping mechanisms)

5. Preliminary Market and Competitive Landscape (0.5 page)

• Market size estimate (TAM/SAM rough order of magnitude)
• Existing solutions: What alternatives exist? (competitors, substitutes, manual processes)
• Gaps: What don't current solutions address?

6. Strategic Assessment (0.5 page)

• Fit with mission: How does this align with organizational goals?
• Capability match: Do we have (or can we build) capability to address this?
• Opportunity size: Revenue/impact potential (rough estimate)
• Risks/uncertainties: What don't we know yet? (assumptions to validate in A1.2)

7. Proposed Next Steps

• Recommendation: Advance to A1.2 / Defer / Kill
• A1.2 scope (if advancing): User segments to research, research methods, timeline (4-8 weeks typical), team (2-3 people)
• Open questions: What must A1.2 answer? (hypotheses to test)

8. Appendix (optional):

• Signal sources (list of reports, articles, interviews)
• Affinity diagram or synthesis artifacts
• Early sketches or concepts (if any)

tcolorbox

Example: Sales Forecast Confidence Opportunity

1. Opportunity Name and Tagline

• Name: Sales Forecast Confidence
• Tagline: Help mid-market sales managers assess deal health with evidence, not gut-feel, to confidently forecast quarterly revenue

2. Need Statement

Mid-market B2B sales managers (managing 10-20 reps, 50K-500K deals) need to accurately forecast which deals will close this quarter to provide reliable revenue projections to their VPs, but lack structured frameworks to assess deal health beyond CRM stage/probability fields, resulting in Sunday evening anxiety, defensive sandbagging, and VP mistrust.

3. Evidence Summary

• Prevalence: 10/10 sales managers interviewed (100%) reported forecast confidence as top-3 pain point; Gartner research cites 68% of sales orgs struggle with forecast accuracy
• Intensity: Managers spend 4-7 hours/week on forecast prep (manual data enrichment); self-reported Sunday evening anxiety (7/10 managers); VP relationships strained by inaccurate forecasts
• Sources: 10 sales manager interviews (A1.1), 3 sales VP interviews, Gartner/Forrester reports (2025), LinkedIn Sales Navigator community threads (recurring theme)
• Key quotes: itemize
• “I'm basically guessing—I have CRM data but it doesn't tell me if the deal is healthy.” (SM-03)
• “Sunday evenings are brutal. I stare at my spreadsheet for 2 hours trying to get comfortable with my forecast.” (SM-07)
• “When I miss forecast, my VP questions everything I do for the next month.” (SM-09) itemize

4. User Context

• User: Mid-market sales managers (10-20 reps, B2B SaaS/tech, 50K-500K deal sizes, 1-6 month sales cycles)
• Context: Weekly forecast preparation (typically Monday mornings); quarterly business reviews with VP; real-time deal pipeline management
• Current behavior: Export CRM data to Excel; manually enrich with 6-8 health signals (legal engagement, budget approval, champion strength) via rep calls/notes; adjust probabilities based on gut-feel; defensive sandbagging (lowering forecasts to avoid missing)

5. Preliminary Market and Competitive Landscape

• TAM: ~200K sales managers in US mid-market B2B (rough estimate based on ZoomInfo data)
• Existing solutions: itemize
• CRM systems (Salesforce, HubSpot): Provide stage/probability fields, but lack health assessment frameworks
• Forecasting tools (Clari, Aviso): Focus on aggregate forecast accuracy (team/org level), less on individual deal health assessment
• Manual spreadsheets: 80%+ of managers use custom Excel/Google Sheets (observed in interviews) itemize
• Gaps: No solution provides structured deal health assessment framework combining data + manager judgment—existing tools either purely data-driven (miss manager tacit knowledge) or purely manual (no structure/consistency)

6. Strategic Assessment

• Mission fit: High—aligns with “empower revenue teams with data-driven insights” strategy
• Capability: Medium—have B2B SaaS expertise, CRM integrations; would need to build health assessment framework/methodology (not just software)
• Opportunity size: If 10% of TAM (20K managers) willing to pay 100/mo (1,200/year), TAM = 24M ARR. Early validation suggests willingness-to-pay higher (200-$500/mo) for forecast confidence.
• Risks: (1) CRM vendors may build this—competitive threat; (2) Managers may not adopt new tool (already tool-fatigued); (3) Health assessment framework may be company-specific (hard to generalize across industries)

7. Proposed Next Steps

• Recommendation: ADVANCE TO A1.2—strong evidence, clear need, strategic fit
• A1.2 scope: itemize
• Sample: 20-25 sales managers (mid-market B2B SaaS focus initially)
• Methods: In-depth interviews (15), observation (5 forecast prep sessions), diary study (10 managers, 2-week tracking)
• Timeline: 6 weeks
• Team: User researcher (lead), product manager, sales domain expert itemize
• Open questions for A1.2: itemize
• What specific health signals do managers use? (Can we standardize across companies?)
• How much do managers trust data vs. gut-feel? (Will they adopt structured framework?)
• Do managers want prediction (“This deal will close”) or diagnosis (“This deal is weak because...”)? (Different solution implications)
• What's the relationship between forecast confidence and VP trust? (Is confidence the real need or symptom of deeper relationship issue?) itemize

Common Pitfalls

1. Solution-embedded need statement: “Users need a dashboard”—remove solution, state underlying goal
2. Weak evidence section: “Some users mentioned this”—quantify (how many?), cite sources
3. Overconfidence in preliminary assessment: Treating A1.1 estimates as validated facts—mark as rough/preliminary
4. Missing open questions: No acknowledgment of uncertainty—makes A1.2 scope unclear

Relationship to Other Methods and Stages

SOD receives input from:

• A1.1 Signal Collection: Evidence sources, preliminary user insights
• A1.1 Synthesis Workshop: Pattern identification, need articulation
• Scope and Ecosystem Mapping: User context, stakeholder landscape
• Story Sharing: User narratives, quotes for evidence section

SOD provides input to:

• I2 Governance: Portfolio prioritization, go/no-go decision
• A1.2 Planning: Defines research questions, scope, methods
• A1.4 Strategic Fit: Preliminary market/competitive assessment (refined in A1.4)
• Stakeholder Alignment: Shared understanding of opportunity across team