Different challenges. Different paths. The same way of getting involved.

Every investment starts with a conversation — and usually quite a few questions.

I participate directly in the conversations and analysis that help us understand the business model, financial performance, market, growth prospects, management team and ambitions of the founders.

At this stage, we are evaluating more than the company. We are also exploring whether we share a sufficiently similar view of where the business could go, whether the quality of the opportunity justifies taking the next step and whether there is a genuine basis for working together.

If there is, we develop our investment thesis and move towards a Letter of Intent (LOI).

I participate in negotiating the LOI with the founders until we have aligned the essential elements of the proposed transaction — but also our expectations around ownership, governance, roles and the company’s next stage.

An LOI is therefore more than a step towards a transaction.

It is our first real test of alignment — on returns and structure, certainly, but also on whether we can imagine sitting around the same table when the decisions become harder.

Following the LOI, I co-lead the Due Diligence process with another Medelion partner, examining the company from strategic, financial, legal, operational, commercial, risk and talent perspectives.

We validate assumptions, identify risks and dependencies and, equally importantly, examine the opportunities and levers that could support the company’s development after the investment.

It is an intensive process, but also one of the most revealing stages of the investment journey.

We get to know the business beyond the numbers: its people, capabilities, culture and the way decisions are really made. And the founders get to know us — how we think, the questions we ask and how we respond when something unexpected appears.

By the end, we should understand much more than whether the investment makes sense.

We should have begun to build a shared view of what the company could become, what needs to change and what is worth preserving.

Once Due Diligence confirms the investment case, we work through the final structure, documentation and conditions required to complete the transaction. I remain involved throughout and oversee the process through formalisation and closing.

In parallel, we work with our investor network to raise the capital required for completion, sharing the investment case, risks and return expectations with the people considering committing capital alongside us.

From the first serious conversations to completion, the overall investment process typically takes around six months, although every transaction has its own rhythm.

And then the relationship changes. Closing changes the ownership structure. It does not, by itself, build a stronger business.

That comes afterwards — through better decisions, a stronger organisation, disciplined execution and doing what we said we would do.

We work alongside founders and management teams as the company enters its next stage. Depending on its needs, that may involve strategy, governance, professionalisation, operational efficiency, technology, commercial development, financial discipline or stronger management capabilities.

In selected portfolio companies where my experience can make a meaningful difference, I remain personally involved as a Board member — supporting and challenging founders and management while respecting the distinction between governance and executive responsibility.

Completion is a milestone. What follows after completion is where the investment thesis has to become reality.

Usually, a conversation.

I start with the CEO and, whenever possible, members of the Board. I want to understand why we are talking now, what they believe the challenge is, what has already been tried — and, most importantly, what should be different because I was there.

Then I ask questions. Some predictable. Others less comfortable.

Occasionally, I will put an apparently unreasonable alternative on the table. Not because it has to be the answer, but because challenging the obvious answer can reveal a better question.

If we believe my involvement can genuinely make a difference, we agree the expected outcomes, priorities, initial dedication and practical way of working.

There should be a clear reason for me to be there — and a clear idea of what success should look like.

At the beginning, expect to see quite a lot of me.

Whenever geography allows, I spend significant time in person, not only with the CEO but with the people closest to the challenge.

Organisation charts tell me who reports to whom. Conversations usually tell me rather more.

I listen, observe, ask, challenge and connect. There will probably be drawings, arrows on a whiteboard and, sooner or later, a proverb.

But eventually everything needs to become concrete. We translate our thinking into decisions, actions, owners, milestones and metrics. Because after all the conversations and ideas, few things tell the truth as clearly as the right metric.

As context, relationships and trust build, the collaboration will progressively evolve from in-person to hybrid and, where appropriate, predominantly or entirely remote.

You work directly with me. But that doesn’t mean I pretend to know everything.

Over more than 25 years across industries, businesses and countries, I have built an extensive network of executives, entrepreneurs and specialists whose expertise and judgement I trust. Many have also become friends along the way.

When a challenge requires specialist knowledge or simply deserves another perspective, I bring the right person into the conversation.

My advisory model is deliberately lean. You work directly with me, and I bring in additional expertise only when the challenge genuinely requires it.

Sometimes experience means knowing the answer. Sometimes it means knowing exactly who to call.

A typical initial collaboration lasts around six months, although both duration and intensity are adapted to the challenge.

The beginning is normally more intensive. As we make decisions and put them into practice, part of my role is to ensure that knowledge, responsibility and confidence increasingly sit inside the organisation rather than with me.

That philosophy carries into the way I advise businesses: nurturing potential is not about creating dependence, but about building the confidence, capability and ownership to move forward independently.

That means involving the people who will ultimately own the change, strengthening the capabilities they will need and progressively transferring responsibility as the organisation becomes ready to take it.

My involvement should therefore evolve too: in person, then hybrid, then remote, then independent.

The objective is not to create a permanent advisory relationship simply because we can. That may be disappointing news for the occasional consultant ego, but I consider becoming less necessary a rather good measure of success.

I am not particularly interested in leaving behind a beautiful deck — or an organisation wondering what to do when the consultant leaves. I am interested in leaving behind a stronger business, measurable progress and a team capable of continuing without me.

If, by the end, you need me less than when we started, we have probably done something right.