recommendation-canvas

name	recommendation-canvas
description	Evaluate an AI product idea across outcomes, hypotheses, risks, and positioning. Use when deciding whether an AI solution deserves investment or recommendation.
intent	Evaluate and propose AI product solutions using a structured canvas that assesses business outcomes, customer outcomes, problem framing, solution hypotheses, positioning, risks, and value justification. Use this to build a comprehensive, defensible recommendation for stakeholders and decision-makers—especially when proposing AI-powered features or products that carry higher uncertainty and risk.
type	component

Purpose

Evaluate and propose AI product solutions using a structured canvas that assesses business outcomes, customer outcomes, problem framing, solution hypotheses, positioning, risks, and value justification. Use this to build a comprehensive, defensible recommendation for stakeholders and decision-makers—especially when proposing AI-powered features or products that carry higher uncertainty and risk.

This is not a feature spec—it's a strategic proposal that articulates why this AI solution is worth building, what assumptions need validating, and how you'll measure success.

Key Concepts

The Recommendation Canvas Framework

Created for Dean Peters' Productside "AI Innovation for Product Managers" class, the canvas synthesizes multiple PM frameworks into one strategic view:

Core Components:

1. Business Outcome: What's in it for the business?
2. Product Outcome: What's in it for the customer?
3. Problem Statement: Persona-centric problem framing
4. Solution Hypothesis: If/then hypothesis with experiments
5. Positioning Statement: Value prop and differentiation
6. Assumptions & Unknowns: What could invalidate this?
7. PESTEL Risks: Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Environmental, Legal
8. Value Justification: Why this is worth doing
9. Success Metrics: SMART metrics to measure impact
10. What's Next: Strategic next steps

Why This Works

• Outcome-driven: Forces clarity on business AND customer value
• Hypothesis-centric: Treats solution as a bet to validate, not a commitment
• Risk-explicit: Makes assumptions and risks visible upfront
• Executive-friendly: Comprehensive but structured for C-level review
• AI-appropriate: Especially useful for AI features with high uncertainty

Anti-Patterns (What This Is NOT)

• Not a PRD: This is strategic framing, not detailed requirements
• Not a business case (yet): It informs the business case but needs validation first
• Not a feature list: Focus on outcomes, not capabilities

When to Use This

• Proposing a new AI-powered product or feature
• Pitching to execs or securing budget/sponsorship
• Evaluating whether an AI solution is worth pursuing
• Aligning cross-functional stakeholders (product, engineering, data science, business)
• After completing initial discovery (you need context to fill this out)

When NOT to Use This

• For trivial features (don't over-engineer small tweaks)
• Before any discovery work (you need user research and problem validation first)
• As a replacement for experimentation (canvas informs experiments, not vice versa)

---

Application

Use template.md for the full fill-in structure.

Step 1: Gather Context

Before filling out the canvas, ensure you have:

• Problem understanding: User research, pain points (reference skills/problem-statement/SKILL.md)
• Persona clarity: Who experiences the problem? (reference skills/proto-persona/SKILL.md)
• Market context: Competitive landscape, category positioning
• Business constraints: Budget, timelines, strategic priorities

If missing context: Run discovery work first. This canvas synthesizes insights—it doesn't create them.

---

Step 2: Define Outcomes

Business Outcome

What's in it for the business? Use this format:

• [Direction] [Metric] [Outcome] [Context] [Acceptance Criteria]

## Business Outcome
- [e.g., "Reduce by 25% the churn of existing customers using our existing product"]

Example:

• "Increase by 15% the monthly recurring revenue from enterprise customers within 12 months"

Quality checks:

• Measurable: Can you track this metric?
• Time-bound: Within what timeframe?
• Ambitious but realistic: Not "10x revenue in 1 month"

---

Product Outcome

What's in it for the customer? Use this format:

• [Direction] [Metric] [Outcome] [Context from persona's POV] [Acceptance Criteria]

## Product Outcome
- [e.g., "Increase the speed of finding patients when I know the inclusion and exclusion criteria"]

Example:

• "Reduce by 60% the time spent manually processing invoices for small business owners"

Quality checks:

• Customer-centric: Written from user perspective ("I," not "we")
• Outcome, not feature: "Reduce time spent" not "Use AI automation"

---

Step 3: Frame the Problem

Use the problem framing narrative from skills/problem-statement/SKILL.md:

## The Problem Statement

### Problem Statement Narrative
- [Persona description: 2-3 sentences telling the persona's story from their POV]
- [Example: "Sarah is a freelance designer managing 10 clients. She spends 8 hours/month manually tracking invoices and chasing late payments. By the time she follows up, some clients have already moved to other designers, costing her revenue and damaging relationships."]

Quality checks:

• Empathetic: Does this sound like the user's voice?
• Specific: Not "users want better tools" but "Sarah spends 8 hours/month..."
• Validated: Based on real user research, not assumptions

---

Step 4: Define the Solution Hypothesis

Hypothesis Statement

Use the epic hypothesis format from skills/epic-hypothesis/SKILL.md:

## Solution Hypothesis

### Hypothesis Statement
**If we** [action or solution on behalf of target persona]
**for** [target persona]
**Then we will** [attain or achieve desirable outcome]

Example:

• "If we provide AI-powered invoice reminders that auto-send at optimal times for freelance designers, then we will reduce time spent on payment follow-ups by 70%"

---

Tiny Acts of Discovery

Define lightweight experiments to validate the hypothesis:

### Tiny Acts of Discovery
**We will test our assumption by:**
- [Experiment 1: Prototype AI reminder system and test with 5 freelancers]
- [Experiment 2: A/B test manual vs. AI-timed reminders for 20 users]
- [Experiment 3: Survey users on perceived value after 2 weeks]

Quality checks:

• Fast: Days/weeks, not months
• Cheap: Prototypes, concierge tests, not full builds
• Falsifiable: Could prove you wrong

---

Proof-of-Life

Define validation measures:

### Proof-of-Life
**We know our hypothesis is valid if within** [timeframe]
**we observe:**
- [Quantitative outcome: e.g., "80% of users send reminders via the AI system"]
- [Qualitative outcome: e.g., "8 out of 10 users report saving 5+ hours/month"]

---

Step 5: Define Positioning

Use the positioning statement format from skills/positioning-statement/SKILL.md:

## Positioning Statement

### Value Proposition
**For** [target customer/user persona]
**that need** [statement of underserved need]
[product name]
**is a** [product category]
**that** [statement of benefit, focusing on outcomes]

### Differentiation Statement
**Unlike** [primary competitor or competitive arena]
[product name]
**provides** [unique differentiation, focusing on outcomes]

---

Step 6: Document Assumptions & Unknowns

## Assumptions & Unknowns
- **[Assumption 1]** - [Description, e.g., "We assume users will trust AI-generated reminders"]
- **[Assumption 2]** - [Description, e.g., "We assume payment timing optimization increases response rates"]
- **[Unknown 1]** - [Description, e.g., "We don't know if users prefer email or SMS reminders"]

Quality checks:

• Explicit: Make hidden assumptions visible
• Testable: Each assumption can be validated via experiments

---

Step 7: Identify PESTEL Risks

Risks to Investigate (High Priority)

## Issues/Risks to Investigate
- **Political:** [e.g., "Regulatory changes to AI-generated communications"]
- **Economic:** [e.g., "Economic downturn reduces willingness to pay for premium features"]
- **Social:** [e.g., "Users may perceive AI reminders as impersonal or pushy"]
- **Technological:** [e.g., "AI model accuracy may degrade over time without retraining"]
- **Environmental:** [e.g., "Energy costs of AI processing"]
- **Legal:** [e.g., "GDPR compliance for storing customer email patterns"]

---

Risks to Monitor (Lower Priority)

## Issues/Risks to Monitor
- **Political:** [e.g., "Potential AI regulation in EU markets"]
- **Economic:** [e.g., "Exchange rate fluctuations affecting international customers"]
- **Social:** [e.g., "Changing norms around automated communication"]
- **Technological:** [e.g., "Emerging AI competitors with better models"]
- **Environmental:** [e.g., "Carbon footprint concerns from stakeholders"]
- **Legal:** [e.g., "Future data privacy laws"]

---

Step 8: Justify the Value

## Value Justification

### Is this Valuable?
- [Absolutely yes / Yes with caveats / No with suggested alternatives / Absolutely NO!]

### Solution Justification
<!-- Write these to convince C-level executives -->
We think this is a valuable idea. Here's why:
1. **[Justification 1]** - [Description, e.g., "Addresses the #1 pain point for our target segment"]
2. **[Justification 2]** - [Description, e.g., "Differentiates us from competitors who only offer manual reminders"]
3. **[Justification 3]** - [Description, e.g., "Low technical risk—leverages existing AI infrastructure"]

---

Step 9: Define Success Metrics

Use SMART metrics (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, Time-Bound):

## Success Metrics
1. **[Metric 1]** - [e.g., "80% of active users adopt AI reminders within 3 months"]
2. **[Metric 2]** - [e.g., "Average time spent on payment follow-ups decreases by 50% within 6 months"]
3. **[Metric 3]** - [e.g., "Net Promoter Score for invoicing feature increases from 6 to 8 within 6 months"]

---

Step 10: Define Next Steps

## What's Next
1. **[Next step 1]** - [e.g., "Run 2-week prototype test with 10 beta users"]
2. **[Next step 2]** - [e.g., "Build lightweight AI model for reminder timing optimization"]
3. **[Next step 3]** - [e.g., "Conduct legal review of GDPR implications"]
4. **[Next step 4]** - [e.g., "Present findings to exec team for go/no-go decision"]
5. **[Next step 5]** - [e.g., "If validated, add to Q2 roadmap"]

---

Examples

See examples/sample.md for a full recommendation canvas example.

Mini example excerpt:

### Business Outcome
- Increase by 20% MRR from freelance users within 12 months

### Solution Hypothesis
**If we** provide AI-powered invoice reminders
**for** freelance designers
**Then we will** reduce time spent on follow-ups by 70%

Common Pitfalls

Pitfall 1: Vague Outcomes

Symptom: "Business outcome: increase revenue. Product outcome: improve UX."

Consequence: No measurability or accountability.

Fix: Use the outcome formula: [Direction] [Metric] [Outcome] [Context] [Acceptance Criteria]. Be specific.

---

Pitfall 2: Solution-First Thinking

Symptom: Problem statement is "We need AI-powered X"

Consequence: You've jumped to solution without validating the problem.

Fix: Frame problem from user perspective. Let the solution hypothesis emerge from validated pain points.

---

Pitfall 3: Skipping Tiny Acts of Discovery

Symptom: Hypothesis → straight to roadmap, no experiments

Consequence: High risk of building the wrong thing.

Fix: Define 2-3 lightweight experiments. Test before committing engineering resources.

---

Pitfall 4: Generic PESTEL Risks

Symptom: "Political: regulations might change"

Consequence: Risk analysis is theater, not actionable.

Fix: Be specific: "GDPR compliance for storing client email timing data requires legal review."

---

Pitfall 5: Weak Value Justification

Symptom: "This is valuable because customers will like it"

Consequence: Not convincing to execs.

Fix: Use data: "Addresses #1 pain point per user research. 20% churn reduction = $500k ARR. Low tech risk."

---

References

Related Skills

• skills/problem-statement/SKILL.md — Informs the problem narrative
• skills/epic-hypothesis/SKILL.md — Informs the solution hypothesis structure
• skills/positioning-statement/SKILL.md — Informs positioning section
• skills/proto-persona/SKILL.md — Defines target persona
• skills/jobs-to-be-done/SKILL.md — Informs customer outcomes

External Frameworks

• Osterwalder's Value Proposition Canvas — Influences problem/solution framing
• PESTEL Analysis — Risk assessment framework
• SMART Goals — Success metrics structure

Dean's Work

• AI Recommendation Canvas Template (created for Productside "AI Innovation for Product Managers" class)

Provenance

• Adapted from prompts/recommendation-canvas-template.md in the https://github.com/deanpeters/product-manager-prompts repo.

---

Skill type: Component Suggested filename: recommendation-canvas.md Suggested placement: /skills/components/ Dependencies: References skills/problem-statement/SKILL.md, skills/epic-hypothesis/SKILL.md, skills/positioning-statement/SKILL.md, skills/proto-persona/SKILL.md, skills/jobs-to-be-done/SKILL.md