How an independent data strategy assessment helped an investor distinguish between presentation-level data strategy and operational reality during late-stage due diligence.
The transaction was progressing smoothly on the surface.
A mid-market company was entering late-stage discussions with a private equity investor. Commercial performance was strong, management was credible, and the equity story was coherent. As part of confirmatory due diligence, the investor requested a review of the company’s “data capability” — specifically whether it was robust enough to support the growth, integration, and reporting expectations implied in the investment thesis.
Management presented confidently:
From an investment perspective, however, the question was narrower and more consequential:
“Is this data strategy operationally real, governable, and aligned to how the business actually runs — or does it exist primarily at presentation level?”
An independent assessment was requested to answer that question without promoting further implementation.
The investor was not seeking validation of tools, platforms, or architecture.
Their concerns were more fundamental:
Crucially, the investor wanted assurance that future value creation plans were not dependent on fragile or ambiguous data foundations.
The review was explicitly positioned as non-delivery, non-implementation work.
It focused on four investor-relevant questions:
The goal was not to score maturity, but to identify exposure.
The company had a well-articulated data strategy, but it was largely framed around capability aspirations rather than executive decisions.
Findings included:
From an investor perspective, this meant:
The strategy looked credible on slides, but thin under pressure.
The business operated with significant decentralisation:
However, the data strategy assumed:
This mismatch created hidden risk:
For the investor, this signalled future friction during scale or integration.
Governance responsibilities were described informally:
In practice:
This raised a red flag:
Governance worked only while relationships held.
Under acquisition pressure, reporting scrutiny, or leadership change, this would not scale.
The investment thesis included:
The assessment found that:
This did not invalidate the thesis — but it changed its risk profile.
The investor concluded that some value levers were conditional, not immediate.
The outcome was not a deal breaker.
Instead, the review allowed the investor to:
Most importantly, it replaced confidence based on presentation with confidence based on reality.
Before signing, several non-technical decisions were made:
No systems were changed. No tools were selected. No transformation programme was launched.
What changed was investment certainty.
The credibility of the assessment depended entirely on its independence.
It did not:
This allowed both management and the investor to engage honestly, without defensiveness or signalling risk.
For investors and private equity firms, data strategy due diligence is not about maturity or sophistication.
It is about:
In this case, the independent assessment did not change the deal.
It changed how the deal was understood.
That difference mattered.
This case study illustrates how independent advisory can help investors distinguish between presentation-level narratives and operational data reality. If you are evaluating data risk, governance, or value creation assumptions in a transaction, these resources may be helpful:
If you are in the middle of a transaction, or planning one and want to understand how data risk could affect value and governance, get in touch to discuss how independent advisory can support your due diligence process.