Technology due diligence for private equity
Test the technical assumptions behind the investment case.
Mochavi gives investors, acquirers and investment committees an independent view of whether the technology is sound, the plan is feasible and the organisation can deliver it.
The decision
Sound architecture does not make an optimistic plan realistic.
A credible product may still depend on an unrealistic roadmap, concentrated knowledge or a team that cannot deliver at the promised pace. Diligence should expose that gap and explain its materiality.
The standard also has to fit the company. A startup may have less mature operations than an enterprise while retaining sound technology, strong execution and valuable speed.
Four questions
Keep the technical review connected to the transaction.
- 01
Is the technology legitimate?
Test architecture diagrams and management claims against the code, data, infrastructure and system that actually exist.
- 02
Is the plan feasible?
Assess whether the roadmap fits the available time, capital, dependencies and delivery history. Less plan detail means a wider defensible range.
- 03
Can the organisation execute?
Examine leadership, team capability, decision quality and dependencies that could prevent a technically credible plan from being delivered.
- 04
What changes for the investor?
Translate findings into consequences for cost, timing, execution and post-close attention without turning them into an investment recommendation.
Evidence hierarchy
Code and operating records carry more weight than presentation material.
Interviews explain the story. Confidence comes from tracing that story through the technology and the record of actual decisions.
- 01
The system
Code, deployments, incidents, production behaviour, security controls and performance data.
- 02
The decision trail
Issues, design records, pull requests, reviews and discussions showing how important changes were made.
- 03
The context
Plans, budgets, architecture material and interviews explaining intent, assumptions and constraints.
Scope and output
Focus the work where it can change the decision.
Mochavi may lead a defined technical workstream, support a wider diligence team or challenge an existing report. When access is incomplete, the report states what remains uncertain rather than manufacturing precision.
- What the evidence supports or contradicts.
- Why the finding matters to the transaction.
- Confidence, assumptions and missing evidence.
- Proportionate pre-close or post-close action.
Professional boundary
Technical opinion, with commercial consequences made explicit.
Mochavi can explain the likely effect of a technical finding on cost, timing and execution. It does not provide investment recommendations, valuations, legal, accounting or regulatory advice, or guarantees of future performance.
Bring the transaction question and the available context.
A high-level description of the target, the assumptions that matter and the decision date is enough for an initial scope.