Your portfolio is reporting progress.
That's not the same as delivering value.
Independent assurance that your technology programmes are delivering the EBITDA you underwrote.
You're getting reporting. Not the full picture.
Across portfolio companies, technology programmes report progress — often confidently. But:
- –Management teams are invested in the narrative
- –Vendors reinforce positive signals
- –Issues surface only when they're material
- –By then, value has already eroded
- ✓It isn't what you're told
- ✓It's what you're not seeing
- ✓Narrative confidence isn't the same as delivery evidence
- ✓By the time it's visible in reporting, the window to act has often closed
What every operating partner actually needs answered
Are we going to hit the number?
Is this actually delivering the EBITDA uplift we underwrote?
Where is the downside?
What could erode value — and how exposed are we?
Is this real, or management optimism?
Can we trust what we're being told?
Whether your investment is translating into results — not just progress
No reliance on internal reporting. No delivery bias.
Different moments, different questions
| Situation | What you need to know | What we provide | Where it points |
|---|---|---|---|
| Something feels off | Is this delivering the value we underwrote? Where is the downside? | Independent view of value delivery, downside risk, and what needs to change | Lite, or Standard |
| Post-acquisition | What did we actually buy? Where are the hidden risks? | Rapid diagnostic of delivery, risk exposure, and alignment to the investment case | Lite |
| Pre-exit | Will this stand up in diligence? Are there gaps in the value story? | Independent validation of transformation outcomes, key risks, and areas to address before exit | Standard, or XL at scale |
| Across the portfolio | Where should we intervene? Where is value at risk? | Cross-portfolio visibility to prioritise action, focus management attention, and improve capital allocation | Portfolio |
Fixed scope. Fixed price. Priced the same whoever is asking.
Four levels of independent review of a portfolio company's programme. Every tier is fixed in scope and price, designed for rapid approval, and delivered before the board meeting or the process it is needed for.
The Signal Check
A fast review post-acquisition, or when a portfolio company's programme starts to feel off.
- Know within two weeks whether this needs your attention
- An independent view without a business case or a sign-off conversation
- Something to put beside the portfolio company's own status report
Most chosen
The Full Assurance Report
For programmes with an annual spend up to £15m.
- Know why the value case is slipping, not just that it is
- Leave with a fix sequence someone owns, with dates against it
- An independent position for the board, not the integrator's version
Full Assurance at Scale
More than £15m a year, or multi-country. At that scale a Standard sample isn't enough to be defensible.
- Know which workstream is actually carrying the risk
- A fix sequence that holds across the whole programme, not one workstream at a time
- Evidence built to stand up in diligence
The Portfolio Screen
A different question: breadth across the portfolio, not depth on one company.
£16,000, £40,000 and £80,000 per programme at Lite, Standard and XL depth — four companies at Lite depth is £64,000. Screen the portfolio shallow, then go deeper on whatever it flags.
Discuss your programme →Fixed price on a one-page scope. We start within 5 working days of your call.
We work from the documents you already have, so your PMO isn't building anything new. Your SI is told it's an independent review and interviewed like any other stakeholder.
Custom — something else? Talk to us →What the step up actually buys
The table above says which level fits the moment. This one says what changes as you go deeper — same evidence-based approach at every level, the difference is depth, not rigour.
| Dimension | Lite | Standard | XL |
|---|---|---|---|
| Annual programme spend | Any | Up to £15m a year | More than £15m a year, or multi-country and multi-integrator |
| Typical question answered | “Are there early warning signs?” | “Where is delivery risk emerging and what should we fix first?” | “How do risks interact across a programme this size, and what should we fix first?” |
| Survey coverage | Targeted | Comprehensive | Comprehensive + workstream-tailored |
| Interviews | 4 × 30-min validation interviews | 8–13 × 30–60 min stakeholder interviews | 16–26 × 30–60 min stakeholder interviews |
| Document review | Project brief | Core delivery artefacts | Deep cross-workstream review |
| Root cause analysis | |||
| Deliverable | Executive Brief | Full report + heat map | Full report + heat map |
| Timeline | 1–2 weeks | 3–4 weeks | 6–8 weeks |
| Time required from the management team | ~2–3 hours total | ~10–15 hours total | ~20–30 hours total |
| Typically compared to | A Big 4 review at ten times the cost | A Big 4 review at four to eight times the cost | A Big 4 review at two to four times the cost |
| Investment | £20,000 | £50,000 | £100,000 |
Portfolio applies any of these three levels across four or more companies at 20% off — £16,000, £40,000 and £80,000 per programme.
For portfolios where a one-off review isn't enough
The four tiers above are one-off engagements. This is the fifth option: standing coverage, not a single point-in-time check.
Standing coverage across your portfolio
- Recurring, independent view across priority portfolio companies
- Delivered ahead of each portfolio company's board meeting, not on a separate calendar
- Consistent scoring across companies, so risk is comparable — not just reported
- Built for operating partners tracking 3+ companies at once
A standing product, not a one-off engagement — pricing reflects ongoing coverage, not a single report.
Same rigour. A fraction of the cost and time.
| Traditional assurance | Performance Radar | |
|---|---|---|
| Cost | £200k–£400k engagements | From £20k |
| Timeline | 8–12 weeks | ~2 weeks |
| Team | Large teams | Lean, focused |
| Reporting | Extensive reporting | Executive-level output |
| Delivery stance | Embedded in delivery | Fully independent |
| Orientation | Retrospective reporting | Early signal, forward-looking |
Structured, decision-ready output — no long reports, no noise
Where value is at risk
Clear view of downside exposure across the programme.
What is driving underperformance
The root causes behind missed outcomes and delay.
Whether the programme will deliver the value underwritten
Independent assessment of delivery against the value creation plan.
What needs to change now
Specific, actionable interventions for management and sponsors.
A concise executive readout
Structured, decision-ready output — no long reports, no noise.
Assessed across portfolio companies under real transaction pressure
"Gave us an independent view of where we stood ahead of a potential transaction — completed in weeks."CIO, European Commodity Trader
Understand whether your portfolio is delivering the value you paid for — and where to act.
No obligation, no sales pitch — just a conversation about whether it's the right moment to bring in an independent view.