We should address all of the improvements you suggest. I do see some relation to point #1 and point #2 though, as missed opportunity is often related to the assumptions you’ve made.

I’m thinking we should have a sidebar which are potential criteria beyond what we cover now in our priority matrix, as well as a section on “other considerations to evaluation”. That section could address assumptions and validation, as well as introduce the notion of a portfolio of approach to compliment priority.

Keep the feedback coming! We’re back from an extended holiday hiatus and now offering the entire book for free in a single file. Grab the link in the News section.

I like the approach and matrix for categorizing. Similar matrix have been used to categorize risks in technology projects for years.

A couple of improvements or idea to the model you propose:
- looking at the missed opportunity cost
- assumptions and validating them
- adding a time and resources component

1- Missed opportunity Cost:
Even once categorized in the matrix, there is most likely not enough resources to do all of them. One angle to look is not only what to do, but what it implies _not_ doing. If 3 concepts are selected, what are the concepts that will never be possible due to lack of required resources.

2- Assumptions
At the stage most concepts are evaluated, they are based on a set of assumptions. Those assumptions are not proven wrong or right yet. In the Develop or Hold area, the lean startup exercise goal should be to measure and quantify the assumptions to see if the concepts moves towards fast track or eliminate.

3- Time/Resources
At this stage, concept can be further prioritized based on the effort & time it would take to bring them to consumers. A concept could be a clear fast track, but lack of specific resources could mean that the time it hit the market makes it loose its relevance