Data & analytics strategy
Assess the data behind a mid-market portfolio company's value-creation priorities. Trace reporting problems, test source readiness, and define the first implementation with owners and acceptance criteria.
The problem
Common signals
Concrete output
Connect a specific review question to its measure, source system, transformation, reporting period, and accountable owner. Show where the current number can be reproduced and where a missing definition, access dependency, or manual adjustment prevents a reliable answer.
Trace a selected KPI through one representative period. Record the actual tie-out, data freshness, missing companies or locations, and unexplained differences. Classify each finding by its effect on the decision, with an owner and the evidence needed to resolve it.
Assess the existing reports, integrations, platform, and internal capacity. Compare a bounded repair with a broader change using operating ownership, dependency, licensing, and migration considerations supplied during the engagement.
Specify the first deliverable, source contracts, agreed calculations, access boundary, test cases, review responsibilities, release conditions, and next dependencies. Distinguish verified findings from assumptions that need validation before implementation is committed.
Scope variants
Use one recurring question such as location contribution, budget variance, or working capital. Inspect the relevant finance and operating sources instead of conducting an unbounded inventory of every application.
Review the incoming company's extracts, chart of accounts, calendars, entity keys, and available history. Define the minimum reporting bridge and the approvals needed for its first consolidated cycle.
Compare a selected set of company packs and definitions. Identify a shared minimum KPI contract and the company-specific work needed to support it; a common template does not imply equal source readiness.
Delivery approach
Agree the review audience, the question that cannot be answered reliably, and a bounded set of source records. Establish who can validate the current result and who will own the improved process.
Review approved extracts, transformations, model logic, spreadsheets, and the published output. Sample a correction or late source as well as the normal path. Begin with redacted material; arrange approved access separately.
Work through the relevant measure and reconciliation with the finance or operations owner. Record source limitations, unresolved definitions, and any small validation exercise needed to distinguish a feasible build from an assumption.
Review findings and the implementation brief together. The next step can be a reporting repair, acquisition integration, performance model, or a decision to resolve ownership and access before building. Implementation is scoped separately.
Technical context
Engagement fit
Anonymized proof
The existing anonymized finance and portfolio account describes organizing measures, reporting logic, source context, and review. The public toolkit provides synthetic examples of the approach. Neither represents a promised result for the company being assessed.Explore representative work
Questions
The starting point is a portfolio operating decision and its reporting evidence. Platform architecture is assessed to the extent it affects that decision. A broader infrastructure review can follow when the findings justify it.
Yes. The assessment defines the first build, prerequisites, responsibilities, and acceptance criteria. Implementation can then be scoped as a defined project or a focused reporting repair using the existing engagement models.
No. Describe the systems and problem without uploading sensitive financial or personal information. Source access and any sample-data exchange are agreed through an appropriate client-approved channel after scoping.
Yes. One company and one representative reporting cycle often provide a useful boundary. Reuse a verified KPI or source contract elsewhere only after checking each company's definitions, access, and operating requirements.
No. A repaired calculation, clearer ownership, controlled file submission, or small integration may address the need. The implementation brief should explain why the proposed change is warranted and what existing components remain useful.
Bring the operating decision, a non-sensitive sample report, and the systems involved. Start with the existing Data and Analytics Diagnostic to define a useful implementation boundary.
Discuss your portfolio data prioritiesThe packaged engagements and delivery models make the commercial boundary visible without forcing every project into the same shape.