The starting point differs. The method does not. Two of these sit inside a single business, one sits a level above it, across a portfolio. All three run through the same four stages and the same order of work. What changes is where the weight falls, and how fast.
A founder, CEO or CFO, occasionally a growth investor pushing for professionalisation ahead of the next round.
Design-heavy. The useful work here is building the operating model and stack the next phase of growth needs, and sequencing that investment so it lands ahead of the pain rather than in response to it. Diagnosis matters, but the value is in the plan.
Measured. Aligned to funding cycles and hiring rhythms rather than a crisis.
A PE operating partner, turnaround director, CRO or investor, sometimes an incoming CEO who wants an independent read before committing to a plan they'll be held to.
Discover-heavy. Rapid, evidence-based triage: what's actually broken, what it's costing, and what to stop, keep and fix, in a form that feeds straight into a value-creation or recovery plan.
Fast. Findings are often needed inside weeks, because a live decision is waiting on them.
A value-creation or operating partner, occasionally a fund's head of data and AI where that role exists.
Breadth rather than depth. The same judgement applied consistently across several businesses, with a shared standard so results are comparable, and a clear view of where attention is actually worth spending.
A standing relationship at fund level rather than an engagement per company. Individual pieces of work inside portfolio companies are scoped separately as they arise, and usually arrive better qualified because the context is already understood.
In a scale-up, that means being willing to say the expensive new platform isn't the answer yet. In a turnaround, it means being willing to say the existing delivery partner is part of the problem, or that the plan the business is already committed to won't survive its own foundations. At portfolio level, it means being willing to say a holding needs less attention than it is getting, or that a value-creation plan rests on technology work nobody has tested.
None of those conversations is comfortable. All of them are the reason to bring in someone from outside.
Usually more relevant, not less. Most of the value at this stage is in not buying the platform yet: getting the data and process foundations right so that when the spend does happen, it works first time.
Rarely. “Keep, but fix” is the most common recommendation, and the cheapest. Replacement is the answer occasionally, and when it is, the reasoning gets shown rather than asserted.
Exactly where most businesses at this stage are. The spreadsheets get mapped rather than judged. Several of them are probably doing real work, and one or two are almost certainly a risk nobody has named yet.
It's often the right time. Investors ask harder questions about data and systems than they used to, and having honest answers ready, including about the gaps, tends to go better than discovering them during diligence.
Findings in weeks rather than months. The diagnostic is designed to produce something that can inform a live decision, not a document that arrives after the decision was already forced.
Yes, and that assessment gets made against the same criteria used to qualify any new partner, with a clear keep, fix or replace position. It's frequently the reason for the call in the first place.
That's what it's shaped for. The output is an evidenced position on what to stop, keep and fix, with indicative cost ranges, written to be used in a plan rather than read once and filed.
Every assessment carries the evidence behind it. Nothing is scored on impression, which matters when the findings have to survive an investment committee rather than just a management meeting.
Both. A single portfolio company is the more common starting point; fund-level advisory across several businesses works the same way, at a different altitude.
Both, and they work differently. Portfolio-level work is a standing relationship across several holdings. Work inside a single company is scoped as its own engagement, and often starts from something the portfolio view surfaced.
It is not a replacement for them. Operating partners carry relationships, sector knowledge and commercial judgement. This adds a technical read that most funds do not have in house, applied consistently enough that holdings can actually be compared against each other.
Yes. An independent technical read before a value-creation plan is written on assumptions is usually cheaper than discovering the same things afterwards.
That gets assessed against the same criteria as any new partner would, with a clear keep, fix or replace position. It is frequently the most useful thing the exercise produces.
Thirty minutes is usually enough for both sides to know whether there's a genuine fit, including if the honest answer is no.