lev-os Managing Value Creation Plans
When To Use
- Building a 100-day plan immediately following acquisition close or new platform investment
- Structuring a multi-year value creation roadmap across revenue growth, margin expansion, and strategic repositioning levers
- Tracking initiative progress for quarterly board or investment committee reporting
- Aligning management teams on prioritized improvement initiatives with measurable KPI targets
- Preparing for exit by documenting realized value creation across holding period
Inputs To Gather
- Deal thesis and investment memo — the original underwriting assumptions, projected returns, and identified value levers
- Baseline financials — trailing twelve-month (TTM) revenue, EBITDA, margins, and capital structure at acquisition
- Management team roster — key operators, their roles, and capacity for initiative ownership
- Existing operational data — sales pipeline, customer concentration, vendor contracts, headcount, and technology stack
- Comparable benchmarks — portfolio company or industry KPIs for revenue growth rate, gross margin, SG&A as % of revenue, working capital days, and customer retention
- Integration or transition items — any carve-out TSAs, IT migrations, or leadership changes in flight
Workflow
Map value levers to deal thesis — Categorize each underwritten assumption into a lever: revenue growth (organic/inorganic), cost optimization, working capital improvement, pricing/mix, or multiple expansion. Assign a preliminary EBITDA impact estimate to each lever.
Design the 100-day plan — For the first 100 days post-close, define 8–15 discrete initiatives. Each initiative needs:
- An accountable owner (single person, not a committee)
- A concrete deliverable and completion date
- A binary success criterion or quantified KPI target
- Dependencies on other initiatives or external factors
- Priority tier: "must-win" (thesis-critical), "quick-win" (low effort, visible impact), or "foundational" (enables future initiatives)
Build the long-term roadmap — Extend beyond 100 days into Year 1, Year 2, and hold-period horizons. Sequence initiatives by dependency order and resource availability. Group into workstreams (e.g., commercial excellence, operational efficiency, talent/org, M&A/bolt-on, technology/data).
Set KPI targets and tracking cadence — For each workstream, define 2–4 KPIs with baseline, target, and stretch values. Establish reporting frequency:
- Weekly: operational metrics owned by management (pipeline, production, cash)
- Monthly: financial and initiative-level progress review with deal team
- Quarterly: board-level scorecard with initiative RAG status and EBITDA bridge updates
Build the EBITDA bridge — Create a waterfall from entry EBITDA to projected exit EBITDA, attributing value to each initiative or lever. Update this bridge quarterly with actual vs. plan variance.
Assign governance structure — Define the operating rhythm: who runs the value creation meeting, frequency, escalation path for stalled initiatives, and criteria for killing or replacing underperforming initiatives.
Document and version — Maintain a living tracker (typically a spreadsheet or project management tool export) that captures status changes, revised timelines, and scope adjustments with date stamps.
Output
The deliverable is a structured value creation plan document containing:
- Executive summary — investment thesis recap, total targeted EBITDA impact, and plan horizon
- 100-day initiative table — columns: initiative name, owner, lever category, priority tier, target KPI, baseline value, target value, due date, status (RAG), and notes
- Long-term roadmap — workstream-by-workstream initiative sequencing with quarterly milestones through projected exit
- EBITDA bridge — waterfall chart or table from entry to target exit EBITDA with per-initiative attribution
- KPI scorecard template — ready-to-populate tracker with defined metrics, data sources, and reporting owners
- Governance calendar — meeting cadence, attendees, and standing agenda items
Quality Checks
- Every initiative traces back to a specific deal thesis lever — no orphan projects
- Each initiative has exactly one accountable owner, not shared ownership
- KPI targets are grounded in baseline data, not aspirational round numbers [VERIFY baseline data sources and measurement methodology]
- The sum of individual initiative EBITDA impacts reconciles to the total bridge target (watch for double-counting across levers)
- 100-day milestones are genuinely achievable within the timeframe given integration realities — pressure-test with management
- [VERIFY] Tax, regulatory, or union/labor constraints that may delay specific initiatives in the target jurisdiction
- RAG status definitions are explicit and consistent (e.g., Red = >2 weeks behind schedule or >20% below KPI run-rate)
- The plan distinguishes between controllable operational improvements and market/macro-dependent assumptions