Tools · General business
Crossing The Chasm
Know which side of the chasm you're on — and run the playbook that gets you across.
How it works
A corpus-grounded GTM engine over a shared tech-adoption-lifecycle backbone, drafted from Geoffrey Moore's canon (Crossing the Chasm / Inside the Tornado, the Four Gears model). Two modes: diagnose reads where you sit on the High-Tech Market Development curve and scores the Four Gears; playbook runs the beachhead → whole-product → bowling-alley sequence to cross.
You bring
{ mode: diagnose|playbook, product, traction? }
You get
diagnose → { stage, stage_evidence[], gear_scores[], weakest_gear, recommended_motion } · playbook → { stage_placement, chasm_diagnosis, beachhead, whole_product_gaps[], bowling_alley[] } — cited to Moore's constructs
Use it for
- →Diagnose my adoption stage: where am I on the chasm curve and which gear is weakest?
- →Build my chasm-crossing playbook: pick a beachhead and the bowling-alley sequence to the early majority
- →Early-adopter buzz isn't converting to enterprise — diagnose the stall, then hand me the whole-product gaps to close
See it work
example outputMode: playbook · product: an AI code-review SaaS with strong early-adopter buzz that isn't converting to enterprise.
Crossing the Chasm — playbook
Product: an AI code-review SaaS; loved by early-adopter dev teams, but the pipeline stalls at enterprise. Mode: playbook. Corpus-grounded, cited to Geoffrey Moore's constructs.
Stage placement
At the chasm. Visionary/early-adopter traction (bottom-up dev signups, enthusiast champions) has not converted into pragmatist, whole-team standardization. Classic early-market-to-mainstream gap.
Chasm diagnosis
Early adopters buy a change agent and tolerate rough edges; pragmatists buy a proven, complete solution with references. Your champions can't drag a risk-averse org over the line alone — the pragmatist pipeline stalls because there's no dominant reference segment yet.
Beachhead (D-Day target)
- Segment: mid-size fintech engineering orgs (200–800 devs).
- Target customer: the platform/DevEx lead accountable for code quality and audit trails.
- Compelling reason to buy: regulated code review with an auditable trail — a "must," not a "nice."
Whole-product gaps (Levitt/Moore)
- generic: core AI review works — covered.
- expected: SOC 2, SSO/SAML, role-based access — gap, table-stakes for the beachhead.
- augmented: CI/CD + ticketing integrations, policy-as-code controls — gap.
- potential: benchmarking + compliance reporting across teams — future.
Bowling alley (adjacent segments in sequence)
- Healthcare/health-tech eng orgs — why adjacent: same audit/compliance buying logic.
- Public-sector contractors — why adjacent: the security story transfers directly.
- Large enterprise platform teams — why adjacent: the toppled regulated segments become the references that de-risk the broad market (toward the tornado).
Cited to Moore: Technology Adoption Life Cycle, the chasm, Whole Product, bowling alley.
Run it on your data
Call it on your own inputs — over the API, or hand it to your AI agent via MCP. Discovery is open; running it is metered.