A structured, interactive view of how we run technology due diligence, from deal context to decision-ready outputs.
Five layers, thirty-eight components. Open any one below for the detail behind it: the questions we ask, the evidence we request and the outputs it feeds.
Technology due diligence · Carve-outs · Integration
Heremba FRAME™Frame · Reveal · Assess · Mandate · Equip
A technology number your approving body can defend. Five layers take a deal from “who is buying, and what?” to a costed, sequenced path to Day 1 — and every finding leaves the process CLEAR: coded, lens-rated, evidenced, actioned, ready.
Select any component for the detail behind it. ← → move between components; Esc closes.
Six questions that frame everything downstream
Twelve evidence domains across the acquired technology estate
Seven cross-cutting dimensions that rate every finding
Every rated finding receives exactly one mandate
Nine decision-ready deliverables
The standard a finding must meet before it leaves the process — whichever layer it came from.
Traced to a FRAME component and given a finding code, so it can be found, cited and reconciled across the register, the model and the IC paper.
Scored on all seven Assess lenses. The finding carries its highest rating: Low, Medium, High or Critical.
Graded D (document), S (system) or P (named person). Where none exists, G — a recorded, owned gap. Nothing is guessed.
Given exactly one mandate — Price, Protect, Plan or Park — with the number, the clause, the plan item or the owner that goes with it.
An owner, a date and a destination output. A finding without all three is not finished.
Finding code: R09-A5-H-D-M1 reads: Contracts & Licensing domain · Commercial impact lens · High · evidenced by a document · mandate: Price.
The five layers run in sequence, each closing at a gate. Who is buying decides how the lenses are read; the deal structure decides where the Reveal weight falls.
Deal and operating partners on a hold-to-exit horizon. Value is the thesis: synergies, the 100-day plan, the exit story. The approving body is the investment committee.
Corp-dev and integration teams outsourcing the technology workstream. The business will be absorbed into an existing estate and must conform to group standards.
Direct acquisitions, often run standalone for a long horizon with a lean deal team and no in-house technology function.
Vendor due diligence and exit readiness: the same twelve domains, run before the buyer’s team does, so nothing is found that the price has not already absorbed.
The legal entity transfers intact. Contracts, licences, employees and systems generally come with it, so fewer consents are needed and a TSA is less likely.
Defined assets only. Contracts, licences and data may need novation, consent or re-procurement, and the business must be lifted out of the seller’s estate. A TSA is expected; separation effort is higher.
Shared ownership adds governance to the first Frame question: who owns, who governs, who decides. Platform and data ownership must be settled before Day 1, not after.
Every finding traces to a document, a system or a named person. Gaps are recorded and owned — never guessed. One finding, one mandate. That is what makes the number defensible in front of an investment committee or a board.
