For AperioHub Program Participants only — please do not share
AperioHub · Project Brief
April 2026 Cohort
Group Orion · Indian Edtech Goes West
A Singapore fund is evaluating a JV investment in an Indian edtech company targeting US market entry — your team advises on whether and how the fund should proceed.
Banking & Finance
Consulting & Business Strategy
Digital Innovation & Entrepreneurship
Client Brief
The situation. Your client is a Singapore-based investment fund evaluating a financial stake in a joint venture with a mid-sized Indian edtech company — think in the mould of an upGrad, Unacademy, or a comparable player in the professional skills and test-prep space. The Indian company has built a proven product domestically, reached meaningful scale, and is now seeking a capital and strategic partner to back its push into the US market. The fund is considering whether to participate, and on what basis.

The ask. Your team will act as the strategy consulting team advising the Singapore fund. The deliverable is a structured investment and market entry assessment: Is the US edtech opportunity real and accessible for this type of Indian player? Does the proposed JV structure make sense as an investment? If the fund proceeds, what entry approach should it advocate for — which segment, which model, which timeline? And if it does not, what would need to be true before the opportunity would be worth revisiting?

Why it matters. Indian edtech has gone through a significant correction post-pandemic — valuations have reset, unit economics are under scrutiny, and international expansion is increasingly framed as the next growth lever. Singapore-based funds are active participants in this space, with the city-state's position as a financial hub giving them both visibility into Asian tech and appetite for cross-border deals. Getting the assessment wrong has real consequences for the fund: capital deployed into a structurally flawed thesis is hard to recover. Your recommendation will be tested against both the commercial logic of the US market and the investment merits of backing this particular route in.
Key challenges
Investment thesis validation Market fit across contexts Incumbent competition Regulatory & accreditation gaps JV structure & risk allocation
Skills you will develop
Market entry frameworks Investment thesis analysis Competitive landscape mapping Data-backed market sizing Strategic recommendation
Program Roadmap
The structure below is a suggested progression — each team is free to adapt the pace, sequence, or approach based on what works best for their project and group dynamic.
Week 1
A
Align
Scope · explore
Week 2
B
Build
Research · model
Week 3
C
Converge
Synthesise · decide
Week 4
D
Deliver
Present · submit
A — Align: Scope, Structure & Team Setup
Before you analyse the US market, make sure your team agrees on which company you are advising and what question you are actually trying to answer.
Days 1–7
Choose your reference company — a real Indian edtech player or a clearly defined archetype
Frame the central question: entry viability, entry strategy, or both?
Divide workstreams and identify what each person will own
Form an initial hypothesis: what do you expect to find, and why?
Suggested output by end of week
Company profile & context Problem framing Team hypothesis Workstream split
Coordinators: Agreeing on the reference company early is critical — analysis becomes unfocused when the team is thinking about different players. Lock this in by Day 2 or 3 and build from there.
B — Build: Research & Analysis
The engine room. Each workstream runs deep and independently — and begins sharing what it is finding.
Days 8–14
Map the US edtech landscape — segments, incumbents, recent entrants
Size the addressable market — TAM, SAM, SOM with visible methodology
Analyse the client's product-market fit in the US context
Build the data workbook — market metrics, competitor benchmarks, financials
Suggested output by end of week
US edtech landscape map Market sizing model Competitor benchmark table Draft data workbook
Coordinators: The data and strategy workstreams need to stay in sync this week. Make sure the market sizing numbers are feeding into the strategy analysis, not sitting in a separate document.
C — Converge: Synthesis & Recommendation
Stop collecting. Start concluding. The team needs to take a position.
Days 15–21
Evaluate entry options: build, partner, acquire, or niche digital-first play
Select the recommended entry segment and model — and justify the choice
Stress-test the recommendation: what would have to go wrong for this to fail?
Draft the final deliverable structure and assign sections
Suggested output by end of week
Entry options assessment Recommended strategy Risk register Deliverable outline
Coordinators: The team needs to make a call — "it depends" is not a recommendation. Push for a specific, defensible position, even if it is "not yet, and here is what needs to change."
D — Deliver: Final Submission
Content first, presentation second. Everything in your deliverable should be something you can explain and defend.
Days 22–28
Integrate all workstream outputs into a coherent final deliverable
Review every claim — is it evidenced, and can your team explain it?
Finalise and attach the data workbook alongside the written output
Submit by the deadline and prepare to walk through your work
Final submission
Market entry assessment (slide deck or report) Data workbook with market sizing & benchmarks Reflection responses
Coordinators: A focused, well-argued piece of work always beats something comprehensive but unclear. Quality of thinking — not volume of output — is what we are assessing.
Final group session — live video call We close the program with a live group session where each team presents and walks through their work informally. Every member is expected to contribute their piece. The last 10 minutes are reserved for an open conversation about your overall experience — come with thoughts, not just slides.
Suggested Workstreams
These four workstreams are a starting framework — not a prescription. Divide and adapt them based on your team's interests, backgrounds, and what the project demands. Select a workstream below to explore what it covers.
Workstream 1
Context & Problem Framing
Understanding the Indian edtech landscape, the client's starting position, and defining what a successful US entry would actually mean.
Workstream 2
US Market & Competitive Landscape
Mapping the US edtech market — its size, structure, key segments, and the competitors your client would be going up against.
Workstream 3
Market Sizing & Data Analysis
Building the quantitative case — TAM/SAM/SOM, benchmark data, and the financial logic behind the entry decision.
Workstream 4
Investment Decision, Risk & Recommendation
Evaluating entry models, assessing JV structure and risks, and shaping the fund's final invest / pass recommendation with supporting rationale.
WS1 · Context & Problem Framing
What this covers
Profiling the Indian edtech sector — its growth, correction, and current state
Defining the reference company: product, model, scale, and competitive position in India
Clarifying what the client is actually asking — entry viability, entry strategy, or sequencing?
Setting the hypothesis: what does the team expect to find, and why?
Useful starting points
One-page company profile: product, revenue model, target segments, India scale
MECE issue tree — what are the key questions the client needs answered?
Hypothesis statement: "We believe the US market represents [X] because [Y]"
The choice of reference company matters. Pick a real player (upGrad, Unacademy, Simplilearn, Physics Wallah, etc.) or define a clearly described archetype — but do not leave it ambiguous. The rest of the analysis depends on this starting point.
Shared Google Drive
Keep all work in your team's shared folder. All work-in-progress files, drafts, and final deliverables should be maintained in your group's shared Google Drive folder throughout the program. Your team-specific Drive link will be shared on your respective Slack project channel.
Reference Resources
Framework
Template
Guide
Resources will be added to this section as the program progresses. Watch for a notification in your Slack project channel.
Data & Analytics Component
📊

Data & Analytics Component

This project lends itself well to a data and analytics layer. While not a standalone requirement, groups that incorporate structured data analysis will produce stronger, more credible work. The market entry and investment questions at the heart of this project are ultimately quantitative — a recommendation without numbers behind it is harder to defend. Where your team has the capacity, build the evidence base.
TAM / SAM / SOM with stated methodology Competitor benchmark table (5+ players) Entry scenario comparison (2–3 modes) Visualised output — chart or summary matrix Key assumptions documented
Using AI Tools
We support the use of AI tools as part of your research and analysis process. Most of your peers will be using them — and in professional settings, so will you. The expectation is that you use AI as a thinking tool, not as a replacement for your own judgment. The analysis, the conclusions, and the recommendation are still yours.
Use it to accelerate, not to replace
AI is effective for research synthesis, structuring arguments, and sense-checking logic. It is not a substitute for understanding what you are presenting.
Verify before you rely
AI tools can produce inaccurate data, statistics, and citations. Any figure or fact in your final deliverable should be independently confirmed.
Own your recommendation
You should be able to explain and defend every conclusion in your work. If you cannot explain it, it should not be in your final deliverable.
Use it to get unstuck
Stuck on how to frame a problem or approach an analysis? AI is a useful thinking partner — ask it questions, not just answers.
Used by your cohort: ChatGPT Claude Gemini Perplexity Llama
Reflection — Include With Your Submission
Include a brief group response to each of the following as part of your Week 4 submission. There are no right answers — these help us understand how your team engaged with the project and what to improve for future cohorts.
01 · Engagement
What aspect of the project genuinely interested your team — and did that change as the work progressed?
02 · Most Valuable Insight
What is the single most important thing your team learned that you did not know before?
This could be about the subject matter, the analytical process, or how your team worked together.
03 · Hardest Part
What was the hardest part of completing this project — and how did your team resolve it?
04 · Career Relevance
How does this project connect to the career paths people in your team are building?
Be specific — generic answers are less useful than honest ones.
05 · What Would You Do Next
If you had four more weeks, what would you investigate or build on — and what would you want to learn that this project did not cover?
Submission: One response per group, submitted alongside your final deliverable. Coordinators should compile and review before submitting.
i

This is a guide, not a script. The workstreams, frameworks, and weekly suggestions here are based on what has worked across past cohorts. Your team is encouraged to use your own judgment, adapt the structure to your project, and bring any relevant prior experience or domain knowledge. The quality of your thinking matters far more than adherence to any particular framework.