Use case 04

Ground truth on every portfolio company

The deal is closed. What you hold is an org chart and a data room. Neither shows how the company actually runs.

For post-acquisition operational assessment, Aperture records how work runs across a portfolio company and converts that evidence into current-state workflow maps, priced bottlenecks, and a ranked improvement backlog. Underneath it is an AI-native operations tool: we map how the work actually runs first, then deploy agents inside the files the work already lives in. This post is about the first step.

The deal closes, and the 100-day clock starts. A value creation plan is due. The inputs are a management presentation, a data room, and whatever surfaced during diligence interviews.

All of it is self-reported. The deck summarizes what management believes. The data room contains what the company chose to document. The interviews reconstruct what people can remember under pressure.

None of it shows how the company actually runs on an ordinary Tuesday. A post-acquisition operational assessment is supposed to close that gap. Most versions of it recycle the same self-reported inputs the diligence team already had.

Why is post-acquisition operating data too thin?

Value creation teams know this problem well. The fund owes hard numbers to deal partners and LPs but often relies on soft portfolio-company data to produce them. Every quarterly review becomes a negotiation between what the company reports and what the operations team suspects: the classic gap between work as believed and work as recorded.

The usual answer is an operational review built from interviews and document requests. It can be thorough, but it is expensive and slow. By the time it is complete, the fund owns a snapshot that began aging the moment the interviews ended, not an operational baseline the plan can stand on.

What does a recorded operational assessment show?

Aperture builds the as-is picture from recorded work. Capture follows the teams operating the company's core loops: order to cash, plan to produce, and the spreadsheet work between systems that no system of record can see.

The value creation team receives three deliverables:

• Current-state workflow maps of the core loops as they actually run
• Bottlenecks priced in hours and dollars, not anecdotes
• A ranked improvement backlog the operating team can execute against (see one from a live engagement)

A picture that can take months to assemble through interviews arrives in weeks.

Where does the assessment fit in the 100-day plan and the hold period?

Immediately after close, the map becomes the evidence layer beneath the 100-day plan. Before capital is committed, it helps the deal team decide whether to target cost, productivity, or growth first, and where.

Mid-hold, it becomes a value creation instrument: a current, defensible baseline that turns “we think procurement is inefficient” into a priced list of what to fix and what each fix is worth.

This is not hypothetical. It is how our current engagement began: the sponsor wanted ongoing visibility into a portfolio company before deciding what to build.

"We want constantly updated visibility into how this company operates."

Investment team, private equity firm · paraphrased

You can read the full story, a four-week assessment inside a consumer goods portfolio company, here.

How does this differ from operational due diligence?

Operational due diligence happens before close. It works from the outside, on self-reported inputs, and its job is to price the deal.

A post-acquisition operational assessment happens after close, from inside the company, on recorded work, and its job is to drive the plan. The two are complements: diligence tells you what you bought, and the assessment tells you what to fund first, delivered as an artifact, not a workshop.

If your fund is building value creation plans from data the portfolio company reported about itself, bring one portfolio company and we will show you what the first map looks like. Talk to the founders.

← All posts