News

Value creation plans rarely fail dramatically. They fade. Something that had genuine momentum at the board meeting in month one is quietly absent from the agenda by month four, and nobody ever formally decided to drop it. It just stopped coming up. 

The pattern behind this is usually the same. The plan was built around a set of priorities that made sense from the outside, at the point of the deal, based on the information available then. By month three or four, the management team is deep into the operational reality of actually running the business, and the plan starts competing with whatever fire is currently burning. Fires win, every time, because fires are urgent and the plan is important, and urgent beats important in the day-to-day unless someone actively protects the important thing. 

The tell that this is happening, and it’s a genuinely useful thing to watch for, is when a value creation initiative stops appearing as its own line in the board pack and starts getting folded into a general “operational updates” section, or starts being described in vaguer language than it was three months earlier. Specific metrics quietly become qualitative updates. “We’re 40% through the pricing project, expecting X uplift by Q3” turns into “pricing work is ongoing.” 

That softening of language is usually the first visible sign the initiative has lost its owner’s attention, well before anyone says so directly. 

The fix isn’t nagging the management team about the original plan. It’s asking, directly and early, who genuinely owns each initiative day to day, not who’s accountable for it on a slide. 

Plans die when they belong to “the leadership team” collectively, because collective ownership means nobody’s actual job depends on it moving forward. 

Plans that survive month four almost always have one named person whose own performance is visibly tied to that specific initiative moving.

Every deal comes with a 100-day plan. It’s in the IC memo, it’s in the first board pack, and somewhere around day 40 it quietly stops being the plan anyone’s actually working from. 

Nobody talks about this part, because admitting it makes the plan look like theatre. It isn’t, exactly. The 100-day plan does real work. It forces the deal team and the management team to agree on priorities before the deal closes, when everyone still has the discipline to write things down properly. The problem is what happens after close, when the plan meets a business that doesn’t behave the way the data room said it would. 

Here’s what actually happens, in roughly this order. 

Week one or two, you discover something the diligence process didn’t catch. Maybe it’s a customer concentration issue that wasn’t flagged, maybe it’s a key person who’s clearly checked out, maybe it’s a system that’s held together with more duct tape than anyone admitted. This isn’t a failure of diligence, it’s just what diligence looks like from six weeks of data room access versus what you learn from actually running the business. By week four, the plan has quietly reordered itself around whatever that discovery was, and by week eight the original document is mostly a historical artefact you reference in the board pack to look consistent. 

The mistake isn’t that the plan changes. Plans should change when reality disagrees with them. The mistake is not telling the board that’s what happened. I’ve watched operating partners keep presenting the original 100-day slide well past the point it stopped being true, because admitting the plan moved feels like admitting the diligence was wrong. It wasn’t wrong. It was diligence, not omniscience. 

The better move, and it takes some nerve the first time you do it, is to go into the 60-day board update and say plainly: here’s what we thought on day one, here’s what we’ve actually learned, and here’s the plan now. Boards respect this far more than a plan that suspiciously never needs updating. A plan that never changes either means nothing’s actually being learned, or means someone’s managing the narrative instead of the business, and board members who’ve done more than one deal can usually tell the difference. 

If you want a practical habit: rebuild the 100-day plan properly at day 30, not as a full rewrite but as an honest gap analysis between what you assumed and what you now know. Present that gap analysis to the board before they ask for it. It’s the single fastest way to build credibility with a board that’s watched other deal teams quietly bury their original assumptions.