Meertec
Meertec · Get Fit · Methodology
Every finding traces back to a source you can name.
Get Fit evaluates the current state of the IT organisation against the value creation plan, and sets out the changes needed to deliver it. This page is the method underneath that assessment: five evidence sources, a ten-day working sequence, and a two-draft review before anything is called final.
01 — Evidence
Five inputs, deliberately mixed
No single channel can bias the picture. Structured interviews sit alongside informal conversation, document review, and time spent simply watching how work actually happens.
Structured interviews
One-to-one sessions with executives and team members, scaled to headcount and time budget.
Document review
Business, product and technology artefacts, from architecture diagrams to KPI packs.
Leadership time
Formal and informal conversation, on the basis that nuance often surfaces off-script.
Direct observation
Shadowing stand-ups, planning and deployment, not just self-reported process.
Internal cross-check
Findings are stress-tested against each other before they're shown to anyone external.
02 — Sequence
A ten-day working reference
Compressed or extended to fit scope and company size, the phases matter more than the exact day count. Each day produces a named, checkable output.
Kick-off and access
Confirm scope and access with sponsor and management; issue the information request list.
Output — Engagement charter
Document and org review
Document review; org chart and systems inventory; initial leadership interviews.
Output — Interview log
People and process
Continue interviews across people and process; shadow key workflows in progress.
Output — Working notes
Technology deep-dive
Architecture review; infrastructure and security controls assessment.
Output — Tech findings draft
Data and AI deep-dive
Reporting stack, data quality, and existing AI or automation use.
Output — Data/AI findings draft
Triangulation
Findings triangulated across all pillars; cross-cutting themes and risks identified.
Output — Draft heat map
Sizing and prioritisation
Opportunities sized on cost/benefit and effort/impact; validated with functional leads.
Output — Draft roadmap
First compile
Draft 1 report compiled and passed through internal quality review.
Output — Draft 1 report
Socialise and revise
Draft 1 shared with sponsor and operating partner; feedback incorporated into Draft 2.
Output — Draft 2 report
Delivery
Final report delivered; findings presented to sponsor and board.
Output — Final report + presentation
03 — Review
Facts first, opinions second
One combined review invites arguments about recommendations before the facts underneath them are even agreed. The review splits into two passes with two different jobs.
Draft 1
Factual accuracy check
Circulated to check facts are right, not to debate framing or recommendations yet. Corrections only.
Draft 2
Feedback incorporation
Socialised with sponsor and operating partner specifically for feedback on findings and recommendations, then finalised.
04 — Evidence request
What we ask for on day one
A named checklist beats a vague request for "documentation": issued at kick-off, tailored per engagement.
- Org chart, dated
- Architecture diagrams / infrastructure inventory
- Vendor & licence contracts
- Security policy & most recent penetration test
- KPI / MI packs, last 12 months
- Value Creation Plan
- Product roadmap
- Critical projects & programmes
- Operations tickets
- Code quality scan results
Traceability
Two logs, kept from Day 2
Interview & workshop log
Date, attendee, topic, pillar — every finding ties back to a specific conversation.
Pain points register
Description, source, notes, so one person's view is never silently read as the whole company's.
05 — Calibration
Scored against something external
Lightweight benchmarking against sector peers and PE portfolio norms
Maturity scores aren't set by the advisor's judgement alone. They're calibrated against how comparable, PE-owned businesses actually operate, so a fund partner reading the score knows what it's measured against.
Under review
Also trialling an engagement-quality dashboard that scores the assessment process itself: coverage, access, document quality, complexity. A promising idea, being validated on live engagements before it becomes part of the standard method.
Get In Touch