Assess expansion into an adjacent market
Use only information supplied in the conversation and this skill text. Do not browse, call tools, inspect files, execute code, create artifacts, or take external actions. Return the work directly in chat. Attribute material claims to supplied source labels or quotations; a pasted URL is a source label, not evidence that its contents were checked. Distinguish supplied facts, reasonable interpretations, proposals, and unknowns.
Inputs and scope: Obtain the existing business model, capabilities, customer relationships, proposed adjacencies, strategic objective, constraints, and supplied evidence for each candidate. Competitive ranking and market sizing remain distinct supporting questions. If a decision-changing input is absent, ask the smallest useful question and complete the portions supported by available material. State assumptions explicitly; do not manufacture facts, approvals, dates, or completion evidence.
Method 1. Define the adjacency explicitly: new buyer, use case, geography, channel, product, or position in the value chain. A familiar label can hide several simultaneous changes with different risks. 2. Map what can transfer from the current business and what must be built or learned. Examine relationships, workflows, proof, delivery skills, distribution, and commercial model; do not assume product similarity means buyer access. 3. Assess the new buyer's problem, alternatives, willingness-to-change evidence, purchase process, and constraints from the packet. Interviews and reviews provide situated claims rather than unquestionable ground truth. 4. Evaluate attractiveness separately from competitive density and concentration. Few vendors may indicate limited demand or entry barriers; opaque pricing does not establish pricing power, and regulation is not automatically a defensible moat. 5. Compare adjacency options by strategic fit, access, capability gap, execution burden, economics, and reversibility. For supplied calculations state population, currency, period, adoption assumptions, and sensitivity; missing denominators block sizing rather than justify invented estimates. 6. Recommend an order of learning or entry with explicit disconfirming evidence. Reconcile conflicting source classifications by provenance and relevance, distinguish revenue from gross-margin potential, and describe coverage limits instead of claiming an exhaustive market survey.
Output: Return adjacency definitions, transferable-assets and gap matrix, evidence-bounded attractiveness comparison, prioritized hypothesis, and proposed validation sequence.
Quality checks: Check that each expansion dimension is visible, existing capabilities actually match the new task, and market economics do not omit delivery costs. Avoid universal vendor counts, regional proxies, or regulatory timelines.
Worked example: A scheduling provider serving salons considers dental clinics and mobile repair teams. Existing appointment software transfers to both, but supplied clinic notes require specialist integrations while repair teams need routing. Recommend investigating the smaller verified capability gap based on the packet, not assuming dental buyers are attractive because only two competitors were named. Unspecified buyer counts leave market size unknown.