Tier 1 — Primary / authoritative
Government and regulator data, audited annual reports, stock-exchange filings, official industry associations, official company disclosures, patents and standards.
Placement readiness · Industry analysis
How to do rigorous industry analysis.
A good industry report does not end with description. It explains how an industry works, where economic value is created and captured, what is changing, who is advantaged, and what strategic choices follow. This is the six-question framework, evidence discipline, and workflow behind that standard.
The spine
WHAT · WHO · HOW · WHO WINS · WHAT CHANGES · WHAT NEXT
6 questions · 18 analytical modules · 8-week workflow
Before opening a template
A framework is a discipline, not a checklist to fill in.
If you deleted every framework slide, would the recommendation actually change?
Which of your numbers are facts, which are estimates, and which are unlabelled assumptions?
01 / The six-question framework
Six questions. Eighteen modules. One decision.
The familiar 5W1H structure is retained as a memorable device, but strengthened with profit-pool analysis, ecosystem mapping, customer economics, capability analysis, scenario planning and evidence triangulation. Open each question to see what it requires.
Arena & growth
WHAT?
What is the market, and where is the growth actually coming from?
Questions you must answer
- What products or services form the industry, and what customer problem do they solve?
- How large is the market today, in both value and volume?
- How has it grown historically, and what is driving the forecast?
- Is the industry emerging, growing, consolidating, mature, renewing or declining?
Exactly what to do
- 1
Define product/service scope, geography, customer set, value-chain stage, time horizon and explicit exclusions — a narrow definition can hide substitutes, an overly broad one can make the analysis meaningless.
- 2
Build a segmentation tree, but only on dimensions that actually change economics or strategy.
- 3
Estimate market size through at least two independent routes — top-down, bottom-up or supply-side — and reconcile them rather than averaging blindly.
- 4
Calculate CAGR = (Ending value / Beginning value)^(1/n) − 1, and separate growth into volume, price/mix, penetration and new-segment contributions.
- 5
Judge lifecycle stage from several signals together — penetration, growth, consolidation, innovation rate and returns — never from growth rate alone.
Required exhibits
Industry boundary mapMarket architecture / segmentation treeFive-year historical size and growth chartFive-year forecast with assumptions and a confidence rangeGrowth bridge: volume, price/mix, penetration, new segmentsLifecycle judgement with supporting evidence
World-class example
For a streaming business, the competitive arena should not be defined only as “other streaming platforms.” Time spent on gaming, social video and other entertainment may be genuine substitutes — the boundary should follow the customer problem and the economic substitution logic, not a convenient product label.
02 / Evidence discipline
An analysis is only as strong as its weakest number.
Maintain a source log from day one: source, date, metric definition, geographic scope, period, unit and caveat, for every number that matters to the conclusion.
Tier 2 — High-quality secondary
Peer-reviewed research, major multilateral institutions, established market research, reputable financial databases, recognised business press.
Tier 3 — Directional
Expert interviews, channel checks, job postings, app reviews, distributor websites, conference presentations, search trends.
Tier 4 — Weak / unverified
Anonymous blogs, uncited social posts, promotional claims, AI-generated summaries without source verification.
Confidence tags
- A — High
- Audited or official primary source; the metric's definition is clear and stated.
- B — Medium
- Credible secondary source, or a triangulated estimate from more than one method.
- C — Low
- Assumption, interview estimate or incomplete source; requires sensitivity testing.
For every material number, seek at least two independent sources or a top-down and bottom-up calculation. Where sources disagree, explain the definition or period difference — Calendar Year versus Financial Year, shipments versus registrations, GMV versus revenue — instead of averaging blindly.
The student rule
Claim → Evidence → Mechanism → Implication
Weak: “AI will disrupt the industry.”
Strong: “Generative AI is reducing content-production time (evidence); this lowers one cost barrier for new entrants (mechanism); therefore rivalry and differentiation may shift toward distribution and proprietary data (implication).”
03 / Worked example
India’s electric two-wheeler industry.
A compact walkthrough showing how the six questions read in sequence — not a substitute for a full current-market study. Dates and definitions are stated explicitly, because mixing calendar-year and financial-year data is a common analytical error.
Decision question
Should a well-capitalised mobility company enter or expand in India's electric two-wheeler (e-2W) industry over 2026–2030, and which positions in the value chain offer the best combination of growth, sustainable economics and strategic fit?
Arena and growth
India remained the world's second-largest electric two-wheeler market in CY2025 (IEA, 2026), while SIAM reported 2.17 crore total domestic two-wheeler sales in FY2025–26 (SIAM, 2026). These two statistics use different periods and cannot be divided directly to infer penetration — the disciplined response is to obtain matched-period numerator and denominator data before drawing any conclusion.
Customers and demand
A useful segmentation separates urban commuters, family scooter users, delivery and fleet operators, students and young professionals, premium technology buyers, and semi-urban or rural customers — each with different utilisation, charging access, financing constraints and service expectations. Total-cost-of-ownership economics, not sticker price alone, often explain adoption.
Industry economics
A complete economic map spans vehicle assembly, cells and battery packs, power electronics, software, distribution, financing, insurance, charging, service and spares, resale, and recycling — with revenue and operating profit estimated separately for each stage, since the largest revenue pool is rarely the largest profit pool.
Competition
A useful strategic-group map separates established manufacturers with large physical distribution and service networks from EV-native challengers with software-led architectures, plus a long tail of smaller players. The live question is not which group is “better” in general, but which capabilities matter most as the industry moves from early adoption toward scale.
Policy, technology and supply chain
India's PM E-DRIVE scheme supports roughly 24.79 lakh eligible electric two-wheelers (Ministry of Heavy Industries, 2026). The rigorous question is not “is there a subsidy?” but how the scheme's exact terminal date and vehicle-level eligibility change effective purchase price, adoption and manufacturer economics — alongside cell chemistry, battery-management systems and localisation depth.
Three plausible scenarios
Scale acceleration (improving economics and financing lift conversion), gradual coexistence (EVs grow in favourable urban use-cases while ICE holds elsewhere), and consolidation shock (price pressure or policy shifts compress weak players) imply different winners and different early-warning signposts — rising matched-period penetration, stable non-urban ICE demand, or dealer and warranty stress, respectively.
Illustrative recommendation
The industry merits selective participation, not indiscriminate entry. A new entrant should avoid a me-too scooter proposition and enter only with a clear wedge — material cost advantage, a defined customer use case, differentiated technology, proprietary distribution, fleet economics, or a service/finance model that improves customer lifetime economics. An incumbent should treat the vehicle as one element of a system spanning financing, service, software, battery lifecycle and resale. The recommendation stays contingent on matched-period penetration trends, acquisition economics, warranty costs, policy eligibility and service-network productivity — which become the monitoring dashboard.
04 / Eight-week sprint
Give each week a job.
The sequence moves from framing to evidence, from evidence to synthesis, ending in a recommendation the team has actively tried to disprove.
| Week | Focus | Activities | Deliverable |
|---|---|---|---|
| Week 1 | Frame | Decision question, boundary, issue tree, hypothesis, source plan | 1-page charter + initial hypotheses |
| Week 2 | WHAT | Market architecture, size, growth, lifecycle, forecast logic | Market model + growth exhibits |
| Week 3 | WHO | Segmentation, interviews, demand drivers, buying journey | Customer and demand pack |
| Week 4 | HOW | Value chain, ecosystem, profit pools, cost/pricing, unit economics | Industry economics pack |
| Week 5 | WHO WINS | Competitors, strategic groups, Five Forces, capabilities | Competitive advantage pack |
| Week 6 | WHAT CHANGES | PESTEL, technology, regulation, supply chain, ESG | Change-force and disruption pack |
| Week 7 | WHAT NEXT | Scenarios, opportunities, risks, attractiveness and fit | Strategic options pack |
| Week 8 | Synthesis | Recommendation, red team, roadmap, executive story | Final report + 10–15 slide board deck |
05 / Rubric & quality gates
Know what “excellent” is worth before you submit.
A hundred-mark rubric weighted toward economics and competition, plus eleven pass/fail gates to run before submission.
| Dimension | Marks | What excellence looks like |
|---|---|---|
| Framing and scope | 8 | Decision question, boundaries, issue tree, hypotheses. |
| Market and growth | 12 | Sizing, segmentation, forecast, lifecycle, triangulation. |
| Customer and demand | 12 | Segments, needs, buying behaviour, driver tree, primary evidence. |
| Industry economics | 15 | Value chain, profit pools, pricing, costs, unit economics, capital. |
| Competition | 15 | Shares, strategic groups, Five Forces, barriers, capabilities. |
| External / disruption | 10 | PESTEL mechanism, regulation, technology, supply chain, ESG. |
| Scenarios and outlook | 10 | Distinct scenarios, opportunities, risks, signposts. |
| Strategic implications | 10 | Attractiveness × fit, choices, trade-offs, actions. |
| Evidence and rigour | 5 | Source hierarchy, definitions, citations, confidence. |
| Communication | 3 | Executive logic, exhibit quality, clarity, concision. |
| Total | 100 |
Quality gates before submission
- ✓
Scope. Can a reader state exactly what is included and excluded after thirty seconds?
- ✓
Numbers. Do the top-down and bottom-up market estimates reconcile?
- ✓
Definitions. Are calendar year, financial year, units, currency and metric definitions consistent throughout?
- ✓
Demand. Is there a driver tree — not merely a list of trends?
- ✓
Economics. Does the report identify profit pools, not only revenue pools?
- ✓
Competition. Does it explain advantage and its direction of change, not merely current market shares?
- ✓
External. Does each PESTEL item carry a mechanism, magnitude, timing and implication?
- ✓
Future. Are the scenarios genuinely distinct, and linked to observable signposts?
- ✓
Strategy. Are the recommendations choices with trade-offs, owners, investments and milestones?
- ✓
Evidence. Are all important claims cited and confidence-tagged?
- ✓
Red team. Does the report state what evidence would falsify its own conclusion?
06 / Formula sheet
The arithmetic every report leans on.
Market size
Units or transactions × average realised price
CAGR
(Ending value / Beginning value)^(1/n) − 1, where n = number of years
Market share
Firm sales / total industry sales, using matched definitions and periods
Gross margin
(Revenue − direct cost) / revenue
EBITDA margin
EBITDA / revenue
EBIT margin
EBIT / revenue
Price elasticity of demand
% change in quantity demanded / % change in price
Capacity utilisation
Actual output / practical or rated capacity
Break-even volume
Fixed costs / contribution margin per unit
CAC
Customer acquisition spend / new customers acquired
LTV / CAC
Customer lifetime value / customer acquisition cost
ROIC
After-tax operating profit / invested capital — state the exact definition used
HHI (optional)
Sum of squared market shares, using one consistent basis for every firm
The final test
If the executive team can remove your PESTEL, Five Forces and SWOT pages and your recommendation remains unchanged, the frameworks were probably decorative. Every analytical module must alter the diagnosis, the economics, the risk assessment or the strategic choice.
Closing principle
A rigorous industry analysis should leave the reader with a sharper decision, not merely more information. The work is finished only when evidence, economics, competitive logic and future uncertainty have been translated into explicit choices and a monitoring plan.
07 / Foundations & continue practising
Built on established strategy research.
This framework draws on profit-pool analysis, Five Forces, dynamic capabilities, ecosystem strategy and scenario planning as taught in the classroom, adapted into a single decision-led workflow for student use.
References
- Adner, R. (2017). Ecosystem as structure: An actionable construct for strategy. Journal of Management, 43(1), 39–58.
- Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.
- Christensen, C. M. (1997). The innovator's dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail. Harvard Business School Press.
- Gadiesh, O., & Gilbert, J. L. (1998). Profit pools: A fresh look at strategy. Harvard Business Review, 76(3), 139–147.
- Lafley, A. G., & Martin, R. L. (2013). Playing to win: How strategy really works. Harvard Business Review Press.
- Minto, B. (2009). The pyramid principle: Logic in writing and thinking (3rd ed.). Pearson.
- Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and competitors. Free Press.
- Porter, M. E. (2008). The five competitive forces that shape strategy. Harvard Business Review, 86(1), 78–93.
- Rumelt, R. P. (2011). Good strategy/bad strategy: The difference and why it matters. Crown Business.
- Schoemaker, P. J. H. (1995). Scenario planning: A tool for strategic thinking. Sloan Management Review, 36(2), 25–40.
- Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319–1350.