Industrial software company, PE portfolio
We turned DD findings into a technical work plan
After closing, an industrial software company in a PE portfolio needed a technical plan that engineering and management could support together.
| Industry | B2B Services |
|---|---|
| Services | Technical Due Diligence, Tech Transformation |
Individual developers held the operational knowledge
The software was deeply embedded in customers’ workflows. Changes had to be coordinated with their operations. Due diligence had identified gaps in tests, access permissions and documentation. After closing, customer projects continued while the investor expected a defensible sequence for the technical work.
When incidents occurred, the team turned to the same experienced developers. They knew the specifics of each installation and decided which changes were ready to ship. Their availability also determined the release process. Extensive modernization would initially have increased this dependency.
The plan had to fit alongside customer projects
Our task was to turn the DD findings into a technical work plan for the period after closing. Each item needed an owner, a verifiable outcome and a description of its dependencies. Management and the operating partner wanted to see which risks would be addressed first and which product initiatives would have to wait.
Each action received verifiable acceptance criteria
Findings became work assignments
We linked each relevant DD finding to a specific change, a responsible team and evidence of completion.
Releases followed defined checks
Tests for critical customer workflows, approvals and rollback procedures became part of delivery. Urgent fixes had to follow the same process.
Backup coverage was tested in practice
We wrote operational instructions while working together. Developers then performed the documented tasks without help from the people who previously held the knowledge.
Reporting showed pending decisions
A shared overview recorded progress, obstacles and capacity decisions. Completed documents alone did not count as a resolved risk.
Product and engineering leads agreed on capacity
We reviewed the findings with engineering leadership, product owners and operations. We separated immediate operational risks from desired architecture changes. Management reserved capacity for release safety and knowledge transfer. We deferred a larger redevelopment because it would have tied up the same developers needed for stabilization.
In recurring working sessions, owners demonstrated changes to the system. We then discussed deviations from the plan with the operating partner. New customer requirements could change priorities, but they had to trigger an explicit decision. This made it visible when a sales commitment displaced technical work.
During handover, we paid particular attention to rollback procedures. We only accepted a documented procedure after another developer had executed it in the test environment. Missing access and unstated assumptions surfaced early.
Releases no longer depended on specific individuals
Delivery followed a shared process. Other team members could cover critical operational tasks, and management could assess technical progress against concrete acceptance criteria. Architecture work remained in the backlog. Its dependencies and prerequisites were now clear, so the team could coordinate it with customer projects.
Knowledge transfer needs proof in practice
DD findings need acceptance criteria
A recommendation becomes actionable when the team knows which change will reduce the risk.
The backup must perform the task
Have the people who will provide backup coverage carry out operational tasks. This reveals gaps that remain hidden when reading instructions.
Product commitments belong in prioritization
Technical plans remain credible when management explicitly decides which work to defer when making new commitments.
A first conversation takes 30 minutes.
We discuss which DD findings should become actionable work assignments first after your closing.