Leania
Menu

PortCo Value Headroom Test

One workflow in one portfolio company. Answer from its own volumes and handling, and this estimates what exceptions, hand-offs and reporting preparation consume today — on your inputs, with your uncertainty, not ours. It then asks the question that decides whether any of it converts: what would management actually do with the capacity?

Before you start

What this is, and what it is not

  • An estimate of what one portfolio company’s own numbers imply about avoidable effort in one workflow.
  • A statement of how confident that estimate can be, given where those numbers came from.
  • A list of the assumptions doing the most work, and the evidence that would settle them.
  • Capable of concluding that there is probably not enough concentrated avoidable work to justify investigating further — and it says so when the inputs imply it.
  • A value creation plan, and not a diligence instrument. It is one workflow in one company, which is also the scope of the engagement it sits beside.
  • A saving. Nothing here is money that will be recovered, and the tool never says it is.
  • A measurement. It runs on what you tell it, and it is exactly as good as that.
  • A substitute for the engagement. Establishing what the workflow actually costs, and which intervention is justified, is what the Evidence Sprint is for.
Why now

What makes this a problem now?

There is no regulator setting a portfolio company's calendar, so this tool does not pretend one exists. You know why this is live and Leania does not — so it asks rather than asserts.

Pick the closest. One answer.

This changes no figure below. It is stored with the result so the reading starts from your situation rather than from a generic one.

Your inputs

Seven numbers and two answers

Loads a stated set of assumptions for one portfolio company workflow, so you can see how the result reads before answering anything. Every figure in it was chosen rather than measured, and the note below says so wherever the figures appear.

Assumed baseline, and the weakest of the three: the other two examples at least have a constructed operational log behind their figures, and this one has nothing. Every figure in it is a stated Leania assumption.

One workflow in one portfolio company, not the group. Annualised at twelve cycles a year, which is the only assumption applied to this number.

Where does this number come from?

Exception handling

Working a case that has left the standard path — repair, re-categorisation, referral back.

Where does this number come from?
Where does this number come from?

Hand-offs and re-keying

The same information entered again as a case crosses the systems an acquisition-led group has accumulated.

Where does this number come from?
Where does this number come from?

Reporting preparation

The per-case work of getting a transaction into a state the monthly pack and the lender reporting can use.

Where does this number come from?
Where does this number come from?

Salary, employment costs and overhead. Not a charge-out rate and not a consulting rate.

Where does this number come from?
Do the same two or three causes account for most of the manual work?

"We don't know" is a legitimate answer, and a common one. It is named as an evidence gap in the result rather than treated as a missing input.

What is the company already seeing? Select any that apply.

These do not enter the calculation. They separate a theoretical number from operational pain.

What happens to these answers. Your answers and the result are stored so the result can be reproduced if the calculation changes. Nothing identifies you or the company: there is no account, no cookie and no tracking across visits, and the session reference exists only to show you this result. Nothing is sent anywhere until you press the button.

Pressure-test this against the real workflow

Review a value hypothesis