1
What belongs in a value creation plan?
A value creation plan is the investor’s account of how the business will be worth more at exit than at entry. It usually combines commercial initiatives, operational improvement, pricing, acquisitions and, increasingly, a technology component. The plan is written at entry, revised annually, and used to hold management and the board to a shared view of what is being attempted.
The technology component is the section most likely to be written in general terms. Where the rest of the plan names an owner, a baseline and a date, this section often names a category. The imbalance is worth correcting before the first hundred days rather than after them.
2
Why fewer steps rather than more software?
Software added to a process leaves the process intact and adds a licence, an integration and a training obligation. Value appears when steps disappear: when an approval is no longer required, when information is entered once rather than three times, when a report is no longer assembled by hand each Monday.
This is a more demanding standard than it sounds. Removing a step requires someone with the authority to accept that it was not necessary, and to carry the consequence if it proves to have been. That decision is not technical, and it is why most automation programmes stall at the pilot.
3
Where do the largest opportunities usually sit?
Rarely inside a function. The costly work in most companies sits between functions: at the handover from sales to operations, from operations to finance, from finance to the client. Each handover involves a restatement of the same information in a different form, and each restatement introduces delay and error.
Examining those seams is more productive than examining any single department, and it has a second advantage: nobody owns a handover, so nobody has already optimised it. The work is unpopular for the same reason, and needs a sponsor who can act across two functions.
4
What should an operating partner demand as evidence?
Four things, and the same four each time. A baseline measured before the change, taken from a number the company already produces. A defined scope, stated as a named process rather than a department. A control of some kind, whether a comparable site, team or period. And a named owner in the business who carries the result whether or not the technology performs.
Two claims deserve particular scepticism: time savings expressed in hours per employee per week, which almost never appear in the accounts, and accuracy measured on the examples used to build the system. Neither is dishonest. Neither is evidence.
5
In what order should the work be done?
The first work should be chosen for the quality of its measurement rather than the size of its prize. A modest, well-instrumented change teaches the organisation how to judge the next one, and leaves a baseline that later work can be compared against.
Sequencing then follows dependence. Processes that supply data to others are addressed before those that consume it. Where a company cannot report reliably on a process today, reporting is the first piece of work rather than an obstacle to be worked around. Plans that begin with the largest prize in the least measurable part of the business are the ones that disappear from the second-year review.
6
What should be retired, automated or merely assisted?
Three outcomes are available for any step, and choosing between them honestly is most of the discipline.
Retire the step where the output is no longer used, which is common in reporting and internal approvals. Automate it where it is repetitive, well specified and tolerant of a defined error rate under review. Assist the person where judgement is required and the value lies in preparation: assembling the material, drafting the first version, flagging the exceptions. Assistance is the least celebrated of the three and usually the largest.