VentureLab

The problem

Market sizing usually lives in three disconnected artifacts. A TAM slide from a strategy deck. A spreadsheet of adoption assumptions someone built at midnight. And a separate financial model that finance rebuilt from scratch because they did not trust the first two. When an assumption changes - target share, adoption speed, pricing - someone has to update all three by hand and hope they still agree.

That gap is where sizing work goes to die. The analysis is sound on the day it is presented and stale by the next board cycle.

The build

One application that holds the whole chain: segments, adoption, P&L, and returns. You define the market segments - B2B or B2C, with their size, growth, and buying behaviour - and VentureLab does the rest interactively.

An S-curve engine models share capture per segment: target share, when fast growth starts, how long the takeover period runs, how steep the curve is. Every slider updates the quarterly projections live. The financial layer turns captured share into a P&L - revenue by quarter, cost assumptions, market potential against captured value.

The investor view reads the same assumptions as a deal: IRR and MIRR, NPV at your discount rate, MOIC, payback period, and a DCF waterfall by quarter with running totals. Terminal value method and exit multiples are choices, so the model matches how your investors evaluate.

The whole thing is data-driven. Swap the segment file and the same instrument analyses a different market - it has run on B2B scale-up categories and consumer segments alike. Scenarios save and reload, and the model exports to a structured Excel workbook when the board wants the numbers in their own format.

The workflow

Everything downstream derives from one set of assumptions. Segments carry their own TAM, growth rate, and rationale. The S-curve controls are the strategic levers. The financial assumptions - revenue model, costs, WACC - sit alongside the strategic levers in the same view. Change any input and the P&L, the valuation, and the returns update together, because they are the same model.

The outcome

Sizing conversations stopped being about whose spreadsheet is right. When a stakeholder challenges an assumption, you move the slider in the meeting and everyone watches the consequence land in the P&L and the returns. The gap between "how big is the opportunity" and "what is it worth to us" closes to zero, because both answers come from the same place.