Case studies
PCB Partners

Built inside PCB Partners

Systematic buy-side origination, built inside PCB Partners

An acquisition thesis goes in. A verified, scored longlist comes out, with the outreach letters, CRM records and meeting-ready target profiles behind it.

Built at
PCB Partners, a UK M&A advisory firm, where he was an analyst
Built by
Henry Qin, now Founding Partner, Finance & Investment Banking at Algosoup
Scope
An investment banking operating system, buy-side first
Status
Running on PCB's live mandates, published with their agreement

In short

7 analyst days per longlist became 3 hours 42 minutes. On one recorded batch: 124 companies verified against statutory filings, 68 cells revised against source precedence, the client-ready workbook finished unattended, then 51 personalised approach letters the same day. The 2 preceding batches, built by hand, ran to 19 letters and 14.

Henry built our buy-side origination into something systematic. Work that took an analyst most of a week now runs in an afternoon.
Dave Hannah · Senior Manager, PCB Partners
7 → <1
analyst days to build a longlist
51 vs 19
letters in a day, autonomous against analyst-drafted
£1.1m
of fee capacity unlocked a year, on a 5 analyst desk
2.1 FTE
of analyst time back onto deal flow

What comes out of it

The client tab of one mandate's workbook. Every row is verified in the register that owns the claim, scored against the mandate rubric, and carries the evidence it was scored on. Unknowns get a dash rather than a guess.

Client longlist, anonymised from a real run
15 cols
#CompanyWebsiteLinkedInDescriptionEmployees CountHQPartnershipsRevenueEBITDAFinancials Year-EndOwnership TypeOwnership DetailsCap TableFounded

10 of 214 rows, UK and mainland Europe. Columns, order and cell register are the sheet's own. Links are live in the workbook; these 404.

And what the client sees

The fortnightly update, assembled from the workbook above rather than rebuilt: shortlist matrix, engagement summaries, targets qualified out, profile slides. Same record, same render path.

Fortnightly client update
1 / 8

Client check-in

Buy-side mandate, UK and Ireland technology services

Prepared for the acquirer

18 March 2026 · Strictly private & confidential

01
Fortnightly

Client update 18 March 2026

02
Pipeline

Summary of shortlisted targets

24 companies carried into outreach across technology services, cloud and data, and security. Counts move at every checkpoint.

Shortlisted
24
Across 3 capability archetypes
Tier 1
9
Meeting held or scheduled
Tier 2
10
Approached, awaiting reply
Qualified out
5
Kept on the deck with the reason
03
Engagement

Targets engaged with the client

TargetStatusClient viewTarget viewNext
█████████████████Second meeting heldStrong cultural fit. Wants to understand delivery utilisation before moving to indicative terms.Open to a deal in the next 12 to 18 months. Founder wants a role post-completion.Share indicative structure. Follow up on FY26 forecast.
██████████First meeting heldRegulated client base is attractive. Wants a second look at the support book.Cautious. Declined a trade approach 18 months ago on price.Arrange technical session with the client's CTO.
████████████████Intro call heldDelivery coverage fills a real gap in the south west.CEO engaged. Two non-operational family shareholders to persuade.Direct approach to the CEO ahead of the wider shareholder group.
████████████████Second meeting heldconsultancy practice is stronger than the size suggests. Wants the delivery team retained.Founder open in principle, wants to understand earn-out mechanics first.Model an earn-out structure against FY26 forecast.
████████████████Intro call heldTraining practice is the draw. Margin needs testing.Interested, no timetable. Board meets in May.Re-approach after the May board.
█████████████First meeting heldOverlaps the existing estate more than expected. Consolidation case is real.Two founders, one keen and one not. Needs handling.Separate conversation with the second founder.
04
Engagement

Targets engaged with Kingsmere

TargetStatusClient viewTarget viewNext
██████████████████Qualification call heldNot yet shared with the client.EOT structure makes a sale complex. Trustee approval required.Confirm trustee appetite before taking to the client.
██████████████████Qualification call heldNot yet shared with the client.Interested. Public sector framework exposure to be checked.Verify framework transferability, then present.
05
Qualified out

Targets recently qualified out

Names stay on the deck with the reason attached. Deleting one is how it gets re-approached in 6 weeks by someone who was not in the room.

TargetStatusReason
███████████████OutInstitutional backing since 2022. Outside the ownership gate.
████████████████Out410 FTE. Above the size band.
█████████████████OutSub-scale at 17 FTE. Partner claim did not verify in the vendor directory.
████████████████OutSponsor-owned. Approached by another adviser in Q4.
06
Sell-side

The same deck, sell-side

The same skeleton with the arrows reversed. Buyers rather than targets, approach status rather than engagement, and the reason a buyer was set aside kept on the page for exactly the reason a qualified-out target is.

BuyerTypeStatusPosition
██████████████████TradeNDA signedBought twice in this space in 18 months. Management meeting requested for week of 24th.
██████████████████SponsorIM releasedFund IV, mid-programme. Focused on the recurring share and contract terms. Questions submitted.
██████████████████TradeApproachedStrategic fit on paper, no transaction history since 2019. Second approach through a warmer route.
█████████████████SponsorSet asidePortfolio company competes with the client's largest account. Conflict raised and accepted.
█████████████████TradeNDA signedAcquisitive in adjacent verticals. Wants the security practice specifically.
████████████████SponsorDeclinedBelow their minimum cheque size. Asked to be kept on for the next process.
07
████████████████

Technology consultancy, software and support provider to mid-market clients across the UK and Ireland

Tier 2
Company Overview
Technology services provider to mid-market clients, Atlassian-first estate, recurring per-user contracts, no break-fix legacy
HQ’d in Leeds, UK
Second office in Manchester, opened 2024
42 FTEs
100% UK-based
Founded 1996

Verticals

  • Professional Services
  • Manufacturing & Engineering
  • Public Sector & Housing
  • Logistics & Distribution
  • Legal & Accountancy
  • Healthcare

Services

Recurring 64% · Projects 36%

  • Consultancy and delivery, day-rate and fixed-scope
  • Application support, per-seat, 3 year terms
  • Software licensing and renewals
  • Data and reporting build-outs
  • Training and enablement, classroom and remote
  • Projects: system rollouts, migrations, integrations

Named Clients

PwCEYDeloitteKPMG

Partnerships & Accreditations

ISO 27001Cyber Essentials Plus
Financials & Ownership
Revenue (£m)EBITDA (£m)
9.6
1.4
FY23
10.8
1.7
FY24
12.4
2.1
FY25
13.9
2.4
FY26E
Companies House filed accounts to FY25. FY26 estimate, flagged.
£12.4m revenue, £2.1m EBITDA (FY25)9% revenue CAGR, margin steady as the consultancy mix grows.

Ownership & Equity

███████████████ (Founder, CEO) 48%; ███████████ (Technical Director) 31%. No institutional capital, no debt on the equity.

EMI pool of 21% across 14 senior staff, vested on a change of control. Ordinary shares only, no preference.

Key Management

  • ███████████████ · Founder & CEO (29 years)
  • ███████████ · Technical Director (9 years)
  • ████████████ · Head of Delivery (16 years)

Adviser Insights

Founder is 58 and has raised succession unprompted. No adviser appointed, so genuinely off-market. Expectation 7 to 8x.

Sources: Companies House, vendor partner directories, company website
01

Neutral advisory house: teal on white, hairline rules, no firm mark, narrative column leading.

Does your origination process look like this?

If a chunk of your analysts' month goes on sourcing, checking and formatting rather than judgement, the same shape of engine applies. A 30 minute call is enough to work out whether it does.