Methodology
How the portfolio reading is scored, how the binding constraint is chosen, and what the numbers do and do not mean. Published so every number can be checked.
What it measures
Twelve statements across two dimensions: portfolio GTM operating maturity (60%) and value-creation and exit readiness (40%). Each is answered on a four-point scale.
The twelve statements, and the five capability groups
Portfolio GTM operating maturity · 60%
- Every portco reports GTM on the same core metrics (pipeline, CAC, NRR, win-rate) in a comparable way
- I can rank my portcos by commercial readiness today — with evidence, not gut feel
- There is a standard 100-day GTM playbook applied across portcos post-close
- Each portco has a documented ICP and a quantified value narrative — not just a product deck
- GTM diligence at entry is as rigorous as the financial diligence
- A portable RevOps / diagnostic capability serves the portfolio, rather than each portco hiring its own
- I can see, per portco, the binding GTM constraint (volume / conversion / capacity / pricing)
Value-creation & exit readiness · 40%
- Each portco's commercial story is underwritten by standardized data a buyer or banker would accept
- I track GTM-driven value creation (revenue lift attributable to operating work) per portco
- Cross-portco benchmarking informs where I deploy operating-partner time
- The portfolio's GTM data is exit-narrative-ready — no 6-month scramble before a process
- I could hand an LP a defensible, comparable portfolio-GTM readiness view this quarter
Capability groups, most upstream first
- Comparability · 3 statements
- Execution standardization · 2 statements
- Operating capacity · 2 statements
- Entry diligence · 1 statement
- Attribution and exit defensibility · 4 statements
How it is scored
Each dimension is the mean of the statements answered, normalised to 0–100. Four anchor statements are always asked; the rest adapt toward the weaker dimension, so about eight are asked.
How the binding constraint is chosen
The statements group into five capabilities. The lowest-scoring group is named; ties break toward the most upstream. An unasked statement is never evidence of weakness.
How value at stake is calculated
One stated assumption: a ten-point execution gap at a $1B fund with eight holdings maps to $150M–$300M of exit value. It is a model, not a published benchmark, and a ceiling, not a forecast. It is never multiplied across a larger gap.
What it does not do
The reading is self-reported and portfolio-level, and there is no benchmark cohort yet. It is a starting point: an engagement's baseline is built with each company's own numbers.