Featured perspective

Underwriting the operating model, not just the market.

In software and tech-enabled services, a compelling market is only the starting point. Durable value creation depends on a clear view of the operating model: where growth is repeatable, where margin can expand, and which capabilities must be built before the next inflection point.

A large addressable market can make an investment case feel settled before the work has begun. In software and tech-enabled services, however, market attractiveness is only one part of the answer. The more consequential question is whether the company has an operating model that can convert demand into durable, profitable growth. That requires a view of how customers are acquired, served, retained, expanded, and supported—not simply a view of the category in which the company competes.

This distinction matters because businesses with similar end markets can produce very different outcomes. One may have a repeatable commercial engine, disciplined implementation, and a product roadmap tied to customer needs. Another may depend on a small number of exceptional sellers, bespoke delivery work, or a pricing model that has not kept pace with the value delivered. A market thesis explains why opportunity exists. An operating-model thesis explains how a specific company can capture it.

The starting point is revenue quality. Investors should look beyond headline growth to understand the sources of that growth and the work required to sustain it. What portion comes from new logos, expansion, price, acquisitions, or one-time projects? Which customer segments renew at the highest rates, and why? How concentrated is the base? These questions reveal whether growth is being created by a system or assembled through individual effort.

Retention deserves the same level of attention. Gross retention can indicate whether the product or service remains essential, while net retention shows whether the company has earned the right to expand within accounts. Neither metric should be treated as self-explanatory. A strong number may be supported by long contracts, high switching costs, embedded workflows, or genuine customer advocacy. A weaker number may point to implementation friction, uneven adoption, poor account coverage, or a product that has not kept up with the market.

Commercial productivity is another core underwriting question. The goal is not to find a single benchmark and force the company to fit it. It is to understand the relationship between sales capacity, sales cycle, win rate, average contract value, onboarding, and payback. A business can support investment even when its go-to-market model is immature, provided there is evidence that the path to repeatability is visible. The risk rises when growth depends on heroic selling, unclear segmentation, or a pipeline that cannot be translated into reliable bookings.

The delivery model is equally important in tech-enabled services. Many companies create value through deep expertise and close client relationships; those strengths should not be mistaken for a scalable model by default. Underwriting should separate the work that must remain high-touch from the work that can be standardized, automated, or supported by technology. The best opportunities preserve the judgment clients value while reducing the amount of bespoke effort required to deliver a consistent outcome.

Margin analysis should follow the work, not just the financial statements. Where does labor sit in the customer journey? Which teams are overloaded? What is the cost of implementation, support, and customization by customer type? A margin improvement plan is more credible when it is connected to specific operating changes: better packaging, a narrower service catalog, improved utilization, productized workflows, or a more deliberate customer-success model. Broad aspirations to improve efficiency are not a substitute for an operating plan.

Management capacity is often the hidden variable. A company may have a compelling product and a receptive market, yet still lack the leadership bandwidth to execute a more ambitious agenda. Underwriting should identify which decisions are concentrated in the founder or a small group of executives, where accountability is unclear, and which capabilities will be needed at the next stage. The objective is not to impose a generic organization chart. It is to understand whether the business can make decisions at the pace its opportunity requires.

A useful operating-model diligence process turns observations into a small number of testable hypotheses. For example: the company can improve conversion by focusing on two verticals; implementation time can fall through a standardized launch sequence; pricing can better reflect value for its most complex customers; or customer expansion can improve with clearer ownership after go-live. Each hypothesis should have evidence, an owner, and a practical path to measurement.

The result is a more grounded investment case. It does not eliminate uncertainty, and it should not pretend to. Instead, it clarifies where value is likely to come from, what must be true for the plan to work, and which early actions deserve attention after close. For investors and management teams, that is the difference between underwriting an attractive market and underwriting a business that can perform within it.