How Private Equity Firms Are Creating Value with AI

Private equity (PE) firms are particularly interested in rapid value realization from investments in portfolio companies. They ' buy to sell, ' typically purchasing companies they believe are undervalued and try to improve their performance and financials over the course of five to seven years before selling them. Given the promise of AI's transformative potential, the industry is increasingly focused on how this technology can help.
The hitch, however, is that quickly creating value through AI investments is far from a sure thing right now. Surveys suggest that only 20–25% of companies have any production application of generative AI in place. A recent survey of 120 large company tech leaders found that only 10% had achieved 'significant' ROI; an additional 11% reported moderate returns. The rest reported no or disappointing returns. While these surveys are focused on generative AI, analytical AI also has a troublesome history of returns in many companies.
Even so, a number of investment firms are leaning into this challenge, creating processes and developing use cases that, once refined and proven, can be deployed in a repeatable fashion to drive consistent value creation.
One of us (Mahidhar) works at Apollo, where he is an operating partner, head of the data, digital and AI team, and leading efforts to ensure a return on AI in private equity portfolio companies. The other (Davenport) is an academic researcher who studies AI and has done executive education at PE firms.
To understand how the industry is approaching this issue, we interviewed eight firms on the issue of value creation through AI. Three of the PE firms we interviewed were specifically created to pursue opportunities involving AI and digital transformation in their investing processes: MGX, which focuses on AI vendors and infrastructure; BayPine, which focuses on driving digital transformation, including the adoption of AI technologies, at its portfolio companies; and GrowthCurve Capital, which is focused on both AI for diligence and for portfolio value creation.
Many companies today have found value creation from AI to be challenging. Given PE firms' mandate to create value in a relatively short timeframe, they offer a unique perspective on how to drive innovation in this area.
Preparing to Create Value with AI
PE firms derive value from their AI investments through a progression of stages, the earliest of which involve preparation within the PE firm itself.
The first of these is securing commitment and talent. It may seem obvious, but for AI initiatives to be successful, leadership—at both the PE firm and at portfolio companies—must buy into the idea that the technology offers considerable potential for creating value. This may require education or persuasion, but it is the precursor for success.
At a leading PE firm, for example, the initial focus was to identify firm and portfolio company leaders who already believed in the transformational role of AI. Then they were relied on to make the case to less committed executives.
With commitment in place, the firm needs to acquire talent—at the leadership level both internally and on the frontlines in portfolio companies. We talked with several firms whose initial inclination was to hire data scientists for these roles, but the consensus among the firms was that they were difficult to hire and retain, and many value creation steps did not require their skills.
Ideal leaders for AI initiatives are operating partners who understand dealmaking processes and how to work with portfolio companies. For building and deploying AI solutions in portfolio companies, hiring several data scientists is one sensible approach, but most of the firms we interviewed rely on consultants for this purpose. Misha Logvinov, operating partner at MGX said, 'While the role of data scientists remains important for certain initiatives, advances in AI development and analytics tools now allow full-stack AI engineers, working closely with subject matter experts, to quickly build and deploy AI solutions at scale.'
The next stage—still preparatory to building AI products—is assessing AI exposure and conducting detailed AI diligence. This stage involves multiple processes. An AI exposure assessment looks at industries, not companies, and points out where there is risk and opportunity for AI, and which industries are likely to see the greatest positive or negative impact. The assessment then guides the firm toward opportunity domains from AI and away from those with high risk. Not all firms we interviewed conduct an AI exposure assessment, but Apollo does, and its partners find it very valuable.
Conducting detailed AI diligence is done when evaluating a particular company for acquisition, to understand AI's role and potential impact on its future value creation. In this process, firms can assess the amount of knowledge workers (potentially affected by genAI), the possible automation or augmentation of the workforce, the competitive landscape as related to AI and a detailed financial assessment considering cost implications and implementation readiness.
This is an increasingly important process for PE firms that are committed to the potential value of AI—one firm we interviewed had 25 general partners involved in AI diligence processes—but it can also be performed by or with assistance from outside consultants. Cory A. Eaves, a partner and head of Portfolio Operations at Baypine emphasized, 'Underwriting value creation from data and AI at the outset significantly increases the likelihood of successful implementation during the ownership period.' Apollo takes a similar approach incorporating AI related diligence as appropriate when considering each investment.
Again, there isn't a uniform approach. Other PE firms we interviewed said that they considered AI in due diligence processes, but the assessment was not systematic. One firm's AI expert, for example, said that they take a 'generalist approach' to value creation in portfolio firms, and that AI was taken into account only in some industries and acquisition candidates.
Implementing AI in Portfolio Companies
Once a PE fund has bought a company, AI activity shifts to planning and implementing AI products and projects within the acquired company. That includes developing specific use cases and a roadmap for implementing them, working closely with the CEO and other executives within the company.
There are several valid approaches to this important step. One leading firm, for example, takes a 'flywheel' approach that not only focuses on solving business problems with AI but also building sustained capability and momentum in the portfolio company. The flywheel components include:
AI governance and compliance
Talent recruitment
Use case identification and prioritization in alignment with the deal thesis
Technology partnerships (curated by the PE fund)
Implementation partners (curated by the PE fund)
Adoption and value realization
Another PE firm uses a DANCE framework for identifying valuable use cases. With its focus on content creation, personalization, and employee productivity, it's well-suited for identifying generative AI use cases. The framework includes:
D: Discover insights
A: Automate Processes
N: Novel creation of products or content
C: Customize solutions (personalized products or services)
E: Enhance Performance and employee productivity
Successful PE firms begin thinking about potential exit scenarios almost as soon as they have bought a company, and thus need to consider how long the AI initiatives will take to implement and whether they would make the company more attractive to a future acquirer. For example, two AI leaders in PE firms mentioned that individual productivity applications of gen AI are unlikely to appeal to buyers unless there are carefully measured productivity gains, which can be difficult to accomplish.
In general, PE leaders said they seek improvements from AI in operational metrics that demonstrate momentum throughout the ownership period. One executive felt early on in their company's AI journey (2022) that even proofs of concept of AI use cases might be sufficient to show the next buyer the potential value of AI, which would avoid all of the challenges of production deployment. However, in 2025 it's clear that some production deployments with demonstrable value are required by both limited partner investors and potential next buyers.
Several PE firm AI leaders noted that it is important to address data quality—either structured data for analytical AI use cases, or unstructured data for gen AI applications —before building AI. The data quality issues ideally would surface during the diligence process. However, given the cost and time of substantial data management initiatives, it's important to be selective in which data domains are improved. 'Avoid the temptation to boil the ocean' was one AI leader's comment.
There are also important talent and change management issues to be considered. From a talent standpoint, a key question is who will do the AI development and implementation. There are three primary options: use external consultants, rely on the portfolio company's own personnel, or build an internal center of excellence that houses technology capabilities and drives implementation across the firm and its portfolio.
Although some PE firms we interviewed have built small CoEs, the primary approach is to introduce portfolio companies to an ecosystem of talent resources that can augment their internal expertise. One AI leader at a PE firm said that, in part because of talent challenges, the firm is encouraging portfolio companies either to buy AI applications rather than build them, or leverage use cases already built by other portfolio companies.
A key change management issue is to get buy-in and recruit stakeholders within the portfolio company. 'This is a carpe diem moment for companies to see their data as an off-balance sheet item,' Sajjad Jaffer, head of data and analytics at Growthcurve Capital, told us. 'Data can be both a latent asset and a latent liability. The private equity industry is in the early innings of infusing a 'data first' culture. This culture starts at the top with the CEO. Private equity boards are also developing a data first approach to guiding their CEOs and management teams.'
Another PE firm attempts to build commitment by involving the company's executive team and board in use-case prioritization and then asking for management volunteers to be accountable for implementation. Another leans on functional heads (e.g., the CFO for a finance-oriented use case) to be the primary driver of the project.
Several of the AI leaders in firms emphasized that analytical AI (as opposed to generative) can often create more rapid value in portfolio companies. For example, one firm used analytical AI to identify a portfolio company's best and worst customers. Another used it to identify cross-sell opportunities. The companies most focused on value creation with generative AI were primarily viewing it as a means of creating better and less expensive products and services, such as in a textbook company and a professional services firm.
The commitment by these PE firms to AI-enabled transformation is evidence that large-scale investors see value in the technology. But it doesn't come automatically by any means. The firms and companies that will be most successful in driving value creation through AI applications are those that both see the big picture – how AI is impacting specific industries in connection with other macro trends – and also focus on the narrow, specific use cases that translate into measurable improvements in productivity, profitability and growth.
The AI-focused due diligence and value-creation activities in PE portfolio companies are a clear indication that AI investments won't yield sufficient value without careful analysis, planning and implementation. As the PE playbook continues to evolve towards a greater focus on initiatives that drive intrinsic value creation, the proven and repeatable AI use cases are being developed now. Any company can and should adopt the approaches that PE firms use to make the most of this transformative technology.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Forbes

28 minutes ago

• Forbes

Tesla Misses Robotaxi Launch Date, Goes With Safety Drivers

A vehicle Tesla is using for robotaxi testing purposes in Austin, Texas, US, on Friday, June 20, ... More 2025.. Photographer: Eli Hartman/Bloomberg Tesla's much-anticipated June 22 'no one in the vehicle' Robotaxi launch in Austin is not ready. Instead, Tesla has announced to its invite-only passengers that it will operate a limited service with Tesla employees on board the vehicle to maintain safety. Tesla will use an approach that was used in 2019 by Russian robotaxi company Yandex, putting the safety driver in the passengers seat rather than the driver's seat. (Yandex's robotaxi was divested from Russian and now is called AVRide.) Having an employee on board, commonly called a safety driver, is the approach that every robocar company has used for testing, including testing of passenger operations. Most companies spend many years (Waymo spent a decade) testing with safety drivers, and once they are ready to take passengers, there are typically some number of years testing in that mode, though the path to removing the safety driver depends primarily on evaluation of the safety case for the vehicle, and less on the presence of passengers. Tesla has put on some other restrictions--rides will be limited to 6am to midnight (the opposite of Cruise's first operations, which were only at night) and riders come from an invite-only list (as was also the case for Waymo, and Cruise and others in their early days.) Rides will be limited to a restricted service area (often mistakenly called a 'geofence') which avoids complex and difficult streets and intersections. Rides will be unavailable in inclement weather, which also can happen with other vehicles, though fairly rarely today. Tesla FSD is known to disable itself if rain obscures some of its cameras--only the front cameras have a rain wiper. The fleet will be small. Waymo started testing with safety drivers in 2009, gave rides to passengers with safety drivers in 2017, and without safety drivers in 2020 in the Phoenix area. Cruise had a much shorter period with passengers and safety drivers. Motional has given rides for years but has never removed the safety driver. Most Chinese companies spent a few years doing it. Giving passengers rides requires good confidence in the safety of the system+safety driver combination, but taking the passengers does not alter how well the vehicle drives, except perhaps around pick-up and drop-off. (While a vehicle is more at liberty to make hard stops with no passengers on board, I am aware of no vehicle which takes advantage of this.) As such we have no information on whether Tesla will need their safety drivers for a month or a several years, or even forever with current hardware. Passenger's Seat vs. Driver's Seat Almost all vehicles use a safety driver behind the wheel. Tesla's will be in the passenger seat, in a situation similar to that used by driving instructors for student human drivers. While unconfirmed by Tesla, the employee in the passenger seat can grab the wheel and steer. Because stock Teslas have fully computer controlled brake and acceleration, they might equip the driver with electronic pedals. Some reports have suggested they have a hand controller or other ways to command the vehicle to brake. There is no value to putting the safety driver on the passengers side. It is no safer than being behind the wheel, and believed by most to be less safe because of the unusual geometr20 November 2024, Berlin: A prototype of the Tesla Cybercab stands in a showroom in the Mall of Berlin. Photo: Hannes P. Albert/dpa (Photo by Hannes P Albert/picture alliance via Getty Images)y. It's hard to come up with any reason other than just how it looks. Tesla can state the vehicles have 'nobody in the driver's seat' in order to attempt to impress the public. The driving school system works, so it's not overtly dangerous, but in that case there's an obvious reason for it that's not optics. Tesla Cybercab concept. With only 2 seats and no controls, not very suitable for a safety driver. ... More These are not being used in Tesla's Austin pilot. That said, most robocar prototypes, including Tesla supervised FSD, are reasonably safe with capable safety drivers. A negligent and poorly managed safety driver in an Uber ATG test vehicle killed a pedestrian in Tempe, Arizona when the safety driver completely ignored her job, but otherwise these systems have a good record. The combination of Tesla Autopilot and a supervising driver has a reasonable record. (The record is not nearly as good as some people think Tesla claims. Every quarter, Tesla publishes a deeply misleading report comparing the combination of Tesla Autopilot plus supervisor to the general crash rate, but they report airbag deployments for the Teslas mostly on freeways and compare it without general crash numbers on all roads for general drivers. This makes it seem Autopilot is many times safer than regular drivers when it's actually similar, a serious and deceitful misrepresentation.) As noted, Yandex, now AVRide, has used safety drivers in the passenger seat, and has done so in Austin--also speculated to be mostly for optics, though there are some legal jurisdictions where companies shave made this move because the law requires safety drivers and they hope to convey an aura of not needing them. This has also been the case in China.) When Cruise did their first 'driverless' demo ride in San Francisco, they had an employee in the passengers seat. So Tesla has been ready to run with safety drivers for years. What's tested here isn't the safety of the cars, but all the complexity of handling passengers, including the surprising problems of good PuDo (Pick-up/Drop-off.) Whether Teslas can operate a safe robotaxi with nobody onboard, particularly with their much more limited sensor hardware, remains to be seen. Other Paths To Launch Tesla apparently experimented with different paths to getting out on the road before they are ready to run unsupervised. In particular, vehicles were seen with the passenger seat safety driver, and also being followed by a 'chase car' with two on board. Reports also came of Tesla planning for 'lots of tele-ops' including not just remote assistance (as all services do) but remote supervision including remote driving. We may speculate that Tesla evaluated many different approaches: Because Elon Musk promised 'nobody in the car' and 'unsupervised' in the most recent Tesla earnings call, there was great pressure to produce #1, but the Tesla team must have concluded they could not do that yet, and made the right choice, though #3 is a better choice than #4. They also did not feel up to #2, which is commonly speculated to be what other companies have done on their first launch, later graduating to #1 #5 just looks goofy, I think the optics would not work, and it's also challenging. Remote driving is real and doable--in spite of the latency and connectivity issues of modern data networks--but perhap Tesla could not get it ready in time. All teams use remote assistance operators who do not drive the cars, but can give them advice when they get confused by a situation, and stop and ask for advice. Even Waymo recently added a minor remote driving ability for low-speed 'get the car out off the road' sort of operations. I have recommended this for some time. It is worth noting the contrast beween Cruise's 'night only' launch and Tesla's mostly-daytime one. Cruise selected the night because there is less traffic and complexity. LIDARs see very well at night. Tesla's camera-based system has very different constraints at night and many fear it's inferior then. On the other hand Tesla will operate in some night hours and with more cars and pedestrians on the street. The question for Tesla will be whether the use of safety drivers is a very temporary thing, done just because they weren't quite ready but needed to meet the announced date, or a multi-year program as it has been for most teams. Tesla is famous for not meeting the forecast ship dates for its FSD system, so it's not shocking that this pattern continues. The bigger question is whether they can do it at all. Tesla FSD 13, the version available to Tesla owners, isn't even remotely close to robotaxi ready. If Tesla has made a version which is closer, through extra work, training and severe limitations of the problem space, it's still a big accomplishment. This will be seen in the coming months. Two robocar teams had severe interactions with pedestrians. Both those teams, and one pedestrian, are dead. Tesla knows they must not make mistakes.

Fox News

32 minutes ago

• Fox News

Bret Baier: 'All bets are off' if Iran retaliates against US

All times eastern THE CLAMAN COUNTDOWN: POWER PLAYERS Maria Bartiromo's Wall Street FOX News Radio Live Channel Coverage

Yahoo

37 minutes ago

• Yahoo

What Do Employees Really Want Instead Of Pizza Parties?

'Overworked and underpaid employees don't want pizza parties and team-building exercises,' he said. His eyes looked strained, and I couldn't tell if he had a headache or was exhausted… I guessed both. 'What's wrong with pizza?' I joked, trying to lighten the mood. 'Nothing. I like pizza. But when you're stressed about finances, have to fight for every penny you make, juggle more responsibilities than you have time, and doing everything you can to exceed expectations to the point of burnout… well, what you need is to feel valued, have opportunities for growth, a wage and a title that reflects everything that you're doing, some help, strong support and a good work culture… some freakin' hope… something that has more of a lasting impact than a slice of pizza.' I remained silent. I couldn't decide if I was allowing him more space to think or if I was thinking to myself how much I agreed with him. 'It's almost insulting,' he continued. '99.9% of the time, they act like they don't even recognize our existence, and now they want to throw us a party? No thanks. Having a party is great, but first, let's get your team healthy enough to enjoy it.' He paused. 'They're panhandling a superficial solution to a real problem.' 'And what's the real problem?' I asked. 'They aren't investing in people — they're investing in results. They don't realize that the results will exceed their expectations if you authentically invest in good, hardworking, talented people. Despite the lack of meaningful appreciation and resources, we have a great team. Think what it could be if they added the missing components.' He removed his glasses and wiped his eyes. He stared at me with a tiredness that went well beyond the moment. 'Wouldn't it be nice to have an environment where employees are invested in so much that they could find another job but don't because they love where they work?' he asked. 'That would be nice,' I said. 'What do you think is going to happen?' 'We are woefully under-supported, yet the expectations keep rising. Essentially, we're being set up to fail… either by failing to reach their unattainable bar or by failing our health and family in thinking that we must continue without setting realistic boundaries. Heck, it could end where I cannot meet their increasing expectations, get let go, and cannot even use them as a reference. That would be ridiculous, as I'm a great employee. I feel destined to fail, and that's a horrible feeling.' 'Sounds like fear is playing a role, too,' I said. 'You bet it does! They have me: I am too strapped for time and finances to even look for another job. By the end of the workday, I'm beyond exhausted, have headaches, can't sleep, and am barely present for my family. Yet, I'm doing this for my family. That's messed up. Worst, I actually like my job. Heck, I'm great at it. But who cares? They'd rather put money into hiring other positions and socials than caring for the few doing the bulk of the work. Where does that leave me? Seriously, where? It leaves me angry because I CARE.' I didn't say anything. 'Right… you're lack of response has been my answer for a long time. I can't do a damn thing, and they know it. But you know what?' 'What?' 'Even more than what I know about them, I know me,' he said. 'I've been in much worse situations than this one. I'm accustomed to survival mode. The difference was that I was fighting for something worth the sacrifice. Here, I am fighting to take care of my family in an environment that isn't fighting for me. The sacrifice, as it stands, is not supporting my why… if I am too sick or strained to be available to my family, why am I giving my limited energy to a job that would soon forget me the moment I'm gone?' 'Very true,' I said. 'I have two months of savings in my account. If I quit today, I would have two months to look for a job. Imagine what I could do with two months of actual rest and serenity. Granted, it would be stressful, especially since I'm already familiar with the devil I know. But, as it stands now, eventually, my body will force me to take two months off to recuperate from whatever condition I'm bringing upon myself. So, if I have to be down and out, wouldn't it be better to be down and out to find a job — rested and fed — than sick?' 'Sounds like you lack work-life balance because you fear losing your job if you speak up, fear failing their continued rising expectations, and fear of an eventual health prognosis of keeping your job if nothing changes,' I said. 'I'm afraid either way, I'm going to lose everything,' he said. 'Let's play that out. What if you lost your job today for whatever reason? What horrible thing could happen?' I asked. 'I could have a hard time finding another job due to the economy, I could be forced to sell our home, I would default on some loans, I would….' He stopped. 'I would fail my family.' 'Of all you just said, you didn't mention losing your family,' I said. 'Oh, I would never lose them. They are my life, and I know my wife and kids are always beside me,' he said. 'Always.' 'So, you'll never lose what is most important because you won't lose them, right?' I asked. 'Right,' he said. For the first time, his eyes looked like they had just read a hopeful line in a sad book. 'You're not letting your family down by acknowledging your worth, recognizing where you're most needed, and adjusting accordingly,' I said. 'What are you suggesting?' he asked. 'I would never tell you what to do, as that is between you and your family. I would recommend you take it to prayer with your wife. I would caution you not to allow this to continue for much longer, as you will eventually begin to harbor resentment and anger toward your employer and yourself for putting up with it. And I would stop having so many passive boundaries.' 'Passive boundaries?' he asked. 'Yes. You know you are a valuable employee. You mentioned to me earlier that you've been a stellar employee in every job you've had. Guess what? You will be again if you choose to get another job. Stop allowing others to pacify you with empty promises and pizza parties. Speak to what you want, whether a promotion or help … whatever you know to be true. If they don't see your requests as valid, that doesn't make them false. It just means they don't know your worth… make sure you do.' 'I know my worth, but I also know my responsibilities,' he said. 'That's fair. Often, we do things as adults because we 'have to' more than 'want to.' Responsibility isn't meant to be taken lightly or shirked. Over time, however, we must pay attention to patterns, noticing when individuals consistently demonstrate that they are not going to change and when it is upon us to change.' 'I get that. I'm just terrified of letting my family down,' he said. The weight upon him was suffocating, and I could tell he was carrying a burden that would eventually break him. 'That's speaking from a position of self-loathing and shame. Such thinking keeps you stagnant in areas where God has gifted you and given you talents to grow. There is nothing shameful about taking care of your health, not diminishing your value, and moving forward in full faith that God is opening doors you haven't even seen.' 'Opening doors I haven't even seen,' he repeated. 'I like the sound of that.' 'All I'm saying is keep your options open… you've convinced yourself that you're trapped. You're not. Even if things change for the better in your current job or it all falls away, the most important things will remain. And God will eventually position you on higher ground. He knows your needs. He knows you. Believe this. Trust God. And move forward, being okay with whatever outcome God provides.' 'Whatever outcome God provides. Yes,' he said. For the first time, he offered a faint smile. God, be with us as we make difficult decisions. Help us to simply be obedient to You, trusting that You will either change our situation or change us. May we use the skills and talents You have blessed us with to serve You with joy, knowing that You will provide for us and sustain us well beyond any earthly position. You are stronger than our greatest fears, and in Your strength, and in Your name, we move. Our true position is in You alone, Christ Jesus. Lead us, guide us, and take us from fear to faith in Your presence and peace. This column was initially published by CherryRoad Media. ©Tiffany Kaye Chartier.