Capabilities

Five capabilities, one loop.

Each capability answers one question your team asks, from how a market works to what changed since the last review. Start at any step; each cycle points to the next.

Discuss your project Start from your question ↓Start from the deliverable ↓Start from the outcome

The five capabilities

Start from the question you’re asking.

01
Map
How does this market work, and where are the gaps?
Expose sub-tier supplier chokepoints, sourcing markups and domestic capability gaps.
You getValue-chain map
02
Find
Which ones should we go after first?
Originate off-market roll-up targets, win-ready defence programs and qualified borrowers.
You getScorecard and shortlist
03
Diagnose
Where is the value, or the risk?
Quantify trapped working capital, SKU and supplier markups, SG&A bloat and asset-level cost exposure.
Company diagnostic Peer benchmark Risk against your framework
You getDiagnostic and peer benchmark
04
Plan
What should we do, and what is it worth?
Build quantified EBITDA, cash-release, channel-mix and capex-phasing roadmaps.
You getValue creation plan
05
Monitor
What changed since the last review?
Re-index supplier should-costs, track peer watchlists and flag portfolio covenant shifts.
You getQuarterly monitoring read

What you get

What each capability delivers.

Seven deliverables across the five capabilities: a value-chain map, a scorecard and shortlist, a company diagnostic, a peer benchmark, an assessment against your risk framework, a value creation plan and a quarterly monitoring read.

“Where are the sub-tier supply bottlenecks, and who holds the certifications we need?”

A map of a market, multi-tier supply chain or regional ecosystem.

Trace sub-tier supplier dependencies, expose single-point forging and component bottlenecks, and build pre-screened domestic supplier benches outside standard industry codes. Every placement carries its source.

For:Governments and agencies Strategy teams Procurement and supply chain Advisory firms

Map: Value-chain map

Value-chain & bottleneck map · Sector AIllustrative

Illustrative multi-tier supply and capability map for a fictional sector
Stage	Qualified supply	Domestic bench	Bottleneck or gap	Confidence
Precision machining	Deep	Several certified shops	None	high
Specialty alloy forgings	Thin	A few dual-use firms	Shared sub-tier forge	medium
Avionics environmental testing	Open	Two candidates to qualify	No domestic cleanroom	medium

Fictional sector and companies; the columns are what you receive.

“Which off-market targets, funded programs or borrowers deserve diligence first?”

A scorecard on your criteria and a ranked shortlist from a fragmented universe.

Originate bilateral roll-up targets, cross-reference plant tolerances against funded defence and industrial tenders, or qualify mid-market borrowers. Adjust the weights in the spreadsheet as your thesis sharpens.

For:Investors and owners Governments and agencies Strategy teams Procurement and supply chain Advisory firms

Find: Scorecard and shortlist

Evidence behind one score · Target BIllustrative

Program & certification fit — Strong

high

Quality registry[Certificate]“Holds active aerospace and welding certifications across main plant.”
Trade press[Interview]“Management comment on defence backlog; not independently verified.”

Analyst reviewAnalyst

Fictional target and sources; the format is what you receive.

“Do the seller's growth and backlog claims hold up before we sign exclusivity?”

A pre-LOI red-flag diagnostic before the meeting or investment committee.

Pressure-test seller market claims, customer concentration, backlog durability and implied equity valuation bridges before committing deal exclusivity or advisory spend.

For:Investors and owners Strategy teams Risk teams Advisory firms

Diagnose: Company diagnostic

§ Pre-LOI diagnosticTarget AIllustrative

Do management's market-growth and margin claims hold up pre-LOI?

Answer: Proceed with caution. Core aftermarket backlog is durable, but seller's stated segment growth outpaces independent customs and peer shipments.
Why: Peer filings and tender awards confirm steady replacement demand, whereas new-build volume reflects a temporary restocking cycle.
Could not verify: Customer renewal rate quoted in the teaser deck. It stays flagged for the data room.
Three things to raise: 01New-build versus aftermarket gross-margin split.
02Paid-off tooling amortization in vendor quotes.
03The unverified renewal figure.

Analyst

Fictional company; the structure is real.

“Where is cash trapped in working capital, and why do our margins trail peers?”

A working-capital, component should-cost and SG&A peer benchmark.

Reconcile accounting footnotes to release cash trapped in inventory and receivables, unbundle component should-costs and trading-house markups, and benchmark post-merger SG&A spans and layers against peers.

For:Governments and agencies Strategy teams Risk teams Procurement and supply chain Advisory firms

Diagnose: Peer benchmark

Working-capital & margin benchmark · Company A against peersIllustrative

Illustrative working-capital and cost benchmark with a fictional peer set
Measure	Company A	Against peers	Basis	Confidence
Days inventory in branch stock	Slower turn	Above peer range	Reconciled FIFO basis	high
Machined component quotes vs. mill index	Surcharge retained	Above should-cost	Parametric cost model	high
Management spans and layers	Not comparable	—	Post-merger basis differs · flagged	low
Unbilled receivables cycle	Longer	Above peer range	Two peers undisclosed	medium

Fictional peer set; the columns are what you receive.

Read the full illustrative diagnostic

“How do input costs, capex schedules and credit rules affect asset cash flows?”

An asset-level cash-flow, cost-exposure and bankability assessment against your framework.

Convert facility operating and engineering disclosures into multi-year EBITDA bridges under escalating cost scenarios, rank facility capex by return and verify supply traceability for borrower qualification.

For:Investors and owners Risk teams

Diagnose: Risk against your framework

Asset cash-flow & risk read · Facility AIllustrative

Illustrative framework and carbon-cash-flow assessment of a fictional asset
Your criterion	Evidence found	Gap or exposure	Status
Carbon-price EBITDA bridge	Facility emissions filing; compliance schedule	Process-heat abatement capex unphased	Specialist review
Marginal abatement curve	Electrification and heat-recovery engineering study	None	high
Borrower traceability check	Off-take and scrap-loop contracts	Sub-tier feedstock provenance partial	medium
Borrower debt-service cushion	Audited statements; mill index sensitivity	None	high

Fictional facility; your framework sets the rows.

“Which commercial and operational levers move EBITDA and cash conversion most?”

A quantified value creation plan: the initiatives, the lever each moves and what it is worth.

Size and sequence the initiatives that close the margin or valuation gap: direct-to-consumer channel shifts, aftermarket repair expansion, SaaS services offloading, SG&A delayering and abatement capex phasing.

For:Governments and agencies Strategy teams

Plan: Value creation plan

Value creation plan · Business unit AIllustrative

Illustrative value-creation bridge for a fictional business unit
Initiative	Margin or cash lever	Key assumption	Work to test it	Confidence
Direct-to-consumer shift	Captures wholesale margin; raises return drag	Customer acquisition cost holds in range	Cohort retention and fulfillment audit	high
Aftermarket repair mix	Service contracts carry higher gross margin	Installed base converts at peer rate	Branch technician capacity check	medium
Services offloading	Shifts low-margin implementation to partners	Integrator bench covers enterprise accounts	Partner readiness review	medium

Fictional business unit; the structure is real.

“What changed across our holdings, supplier indices and peer watchlists since last quarter?”

Re-index supplier should-costs, track peer benchmarks and flag portfolio shifts.

Compare holdings, supplier surcharges and peer filings against your dated baseline to surface restatements, mill-index divergence and credit triggers before your next committee.

For:Investors and owners Risk teams Procurement and supply chain

Monitor: Quarterly monitoring read

Your dated baseline: An agreed starting point across holdings, peer metrics and commodity should-cost indices, scoped to your review calendar.
What moved: Restated footnote metrics, mill-index versus vendor-price divergence, and covenant or policy shifts, with sources attached.
Where to act: Holdings, vendor contracts and open diligence questions that warrant renegotiation or deeper review this quarter.

Start with one question

Bring us the question behind your next decision.

Tell us what you’re investigating and when you need an answer. We’ll discuss the scope, inputs and research that would help.

Discuss your project