| name | gap-analysis |
| description | Identify gaps between current and desired state. Use when the user says "gap analysis", "what's missing", "current vs future state", "where are the gaps", "capability gap", "maturity assessment", "fit-gap analysis", "what needs to change", "compare current to target", "readiness assessment" - even if they don't explicitly say "gap analysis".
|
Overview
Based on the BABOK Guide v3 (IIBA) - Strategy Analysis knowledge area, which defines gap analysis as the comparison between current state and desired future state to identify changes needed. Also draws on Mastering the Requirements Process by Suzanne & James Robertson for the Brown Cow Model - a 2x2 matrix (What/How x Now/Future) that prevents teams from jumping to solutions before understanding the problem space. The key insight: gap analysis must cover all four quadrants of the Brown Cow Model. Teams that skip "What-Now" (current business requirements) and jump straight to "How-Future" (new system design) build the wrong thing.
Workflow
Step 1: Define the desired future state
Document what success looks like using measurable targets:
FUTURE STATE OBJECTIVE: [what capability or performance level is needed]
BUSINESS DRIVER: [why this change is needed now]
SUCCESS METRIC: [how we will know we've arrived]
TARGET DATE: [when this must be achieved]
Step 2: Document the current state using Brown Cow Model
Map all four quadrants:
| | WHAT (requirements) | HOW (implementation) |
|-----------|----------------------------|------------------------------|
| NOW | Current business needs | Current systems & processes |
| FUTURE | Future business needs | Future systems & processes |
- What-Now: What does the business need today? (Often undocumented)
- How-Now: How is it currently delivered? (Systems, processes, people)
- What-Future: What will the business need? (New requirements)
- How-Future: How should it be delivered? (Design this last, not first)
Step 3: Identify gaps across 4 dimensions
For each dimension, compare current to desired:
| Dimension | Current State | Desired State | Gap |
|---|
| Process | [how work flows today] | [how it should flow] | [what's missing or broken] |
| Technology | [current systems] | [needed capabilities] | [what's missing or inadequate] |
| People | [current skills/capacity] | [needed skills/capacity] | [training, hiring, restructuring] |
| Policy | [current rules/governance] | [needed rules/governance] | [policy changes required] |
Step 4: Categorize each gap
- Missing capability: Does not exist today, must be built or acquired
- Underperforming capability: Exists but doesn't meet the target
- Unnecessary capability: Exists but is not needed in the future state (candidate for removal)
Step 5: Prioritize gaps using Force-Field Analysis
For each gap, assess:
- Driving forces: factors pushing toward closing the gap (business need, regulation, competition)
- Restraining forces: factors resisting change (cost, complexity, organizational resistance)
- Net priority: driving forces minus restraining forces
Rank gaps by net priority to determine which to address first.
Step 6: Recommend actions
For each gap:
GAP: [description]
SEVERITY: [High / Medium / Low]
ACTION: [Build / Buy / Partner / Defer / Accept]
OWNER: [who is responsible]
EFFORT: [estimated complexity]
DEPENDENCIES: [what must happen first]
Step 7: Output the gap register
Deliver a consolidated gap register with all gaps, their categorization, priority, and recommended actions. Include the Brown Cow Model diagram and Force-Field Analysis summary.
Anti-Patterns
1. Jumping to solutions before documenting current state
Bad: "We need a new CRM system." (Without analyzing what the current state is or what specific gaps exist.)
Good: Document What-Now and How-Now first, then identify specific gaps, then evaluate solutions.
2. Only identifying technology gaps
Bad: Gap analysis that lists missing software features but ignores process, people, and policy.
Good: Cover all 4 dimensions - often the biggest gaps are in process and people, not technology.
3. No prioritization - all gaps treated equally
Bad: A flat list of 30 gaps with no ranking.
Good: Force-Field Analysis or severity scoring to identify the vital few gaps that matter most.
4. Vague gap descriptions
Bad: "Improve reporting capabilities."
Good: "Current reporting requires 4 hours of manual Excel compilation; future state requires automated dashboards refreshed every 15 minutes."
5. Future state without success metrics
Bad: "We want to be best in class."
Good: "Reduce order fulfillment cycle time from 5 days to 1 day, measured by average across all orders."
Quality Checklist
