In one minute
Connect an outcome to customer opportunities, competing solutions and assumption tests.
Start with one measurable outcome, branch into observed customer needs and friction, branch again into possible responses, and attach cheap tests to the riskiest assumptions.
The problem it addresses
Product teams accumulate feature ideas without a traceable reason to expect an outcome.
A learning app targets better course completion. Users say reminders are noisy, but interviews show confusion about the next exercise and little feedback after attempts.
When to use it
- Use Opportunity Solution Tree when product teams accumulate feature ideas without a traceable reason to expect an outcome.
- The team can examine: An outcome metric, recent customer evidence, several options and a test owner.
- A relevant situation is: A learning app targets better course completion. Users say reminders are noisy, but interviews show confusion about the next exercise and little feedback after attempts.
When not to use it
Do not use it to replace evidence, accountable judgement or affected people's participation.
Writing features as opportunities or treating a tree as proof of causality.
Inputs required
An outcome metric, recent customer evidence, several options and a test owner.
Step-by-step process
1. Bound the decision and name its owner.
Write the scope, decision owner and people who can veto or revise the result before starting the workshop.
2. Collect the necessary evidence and affected perspectives.
Collect and date the necessary evidence: An outcome metric, recent customer evidence, several options and a test owner.
3. Choose an outcome the team can influence.
Set a baseline, time horizon and guardrail; choose an outcome the team can affect, not a feature delivery count.
4. Extract opportunities from observed customer behaviour.
Quote or link to interviews and observed behaviour for each customer opportunity; keep proposed features on a different branch.
5. Group opportunities without erasing minority needs.
Group related needs, but tag whose need may disappear in the aggregate and where evidence is thin.
6. Generate multiple solutions for a priority opportunity.
Create at least two materially different responses to the chosen need and name each response's riskiest assumption.
7. Test assumptions and update the tree with results.
Run the cheapest ethical test that could change the branch; date the result and prune or revise unsupported links.
8. Record the output, next test and review trigger.
Store the artifact with its evidence links, owner, bounded next test and date or trigger for review.
AI automation lens
AI may sort authorised notes and expose missing evidence. It must not invent observations, silently decide for affected people or present a generated map as validated.
Visual model
Text alternative: Choose an outcome the team can influence; Extract opportunities from observed customer behaviour; Group opportunities without erasing minority needs; Generate multiple solutions for a priority opportunity; Test assumptions and update the tree with results.
Interactive example
Scenario: A learning app targets better course completion. Users say reminders are noisy, but interviews show confusion about the next exercise and little feedback after attempts.
Worked answer: Map navigation and feedback as distinct opportunities; test an explicit next step and useful response before adding more reminders.
Facilitation notes
Record disagreements before synthesising; ask whose evidence is missing; state who may revise the result.
Expected output
- An inspectable decision artifact, its assumptions and evidence, a responsible owner, a bounded next test and a review date.
- Test assumptions and update the tree with results.
- A named owner, test and review date.
Common mistakes
Writing features as opportunities or treating a tree as proof of causality.
Quality checklist
- The decision and system boundary are explicit.
- Affected people and alternative accounts are included.
- Each important claim has a source or is marked as an assumption.
- An owner, safeguard and disconfirming signal are named.
Template
Knowledge check
Question: What mistake would undermine this method in the scenario?
Answer: Writing features as opportunities or treating a tree as proof of causality.
Related tools
References
- Opportunity Solution Tree — method source (opens in a new tab). Accessed 2026-09-28.
- Independent practice reference (opens in a new tab). Accessed 2026-09-28.
Method profile
The method structures a discussion and a test; it does not establish causal proof or guarantee success.