This is one of the questions I am working on independently.
Many organizations know where they want to go and can describe some of the problems in the way. The harder question is whether the gap between today's performance and the desired future can be made specific enough to guide repeated action and learning.
Why I find the problem interesting
Companies with similar products, systems and strategies can still produce very different results. A large part of that difference appears to sit in what people and teams actually do: priorities, habits, decisions, execution and learning.
That makes the "gap" more than a strategy exercise. It can potentially become an operating input.
Current working idea
Desired outcome → observable current state → meaningful gaps → prioritized changes → action → measured effect → updated understanding
The concept explores whether fact-based assessment, customer insight, development work and AI can make that loop more continuous and useful.
What I currently think
A gap analysis only creates value when it changes what happens next. The useful unit is therefore not the gap itself, but the connection between evidence, a specific improvement, execution and a result that can be observed.
What I still do not know
Which gaps are actually causal rather than merely correlated with performance? How much should be standardized across organizations? How much must remain contextual? And how do we make a long-term growth system useful enough that people actually use it in everyday work?