Is your organisation built to be investable, or merely growing?

By Andy Sloan

2 June 2026 · 4 min read

Most dental founders will never know the answer to that question. Not because they have not thought about it, but because by the time it matters, it is usually too late to change it. Growth is easy to manufacture. Revenue can be engineered, headcount can be added, sites can be opened. In the dental sector, we have become extremely good at all of it. What is harder to manufacture is investability. And the two are not the same thing. I was on the deal team for two private equity transactions and on the buy side across seven acquisitions at Agilio Software. I have been involved in more than 120 acquisitions across the UK dental sector. I have seen businesses growing at pace fail to attract capital, and I have seen businesses a fraction of their size command valuations that seemed, to outsiders, implausible. The difference was rarely the numbers. It was always the strategy underneath the numbers. Investors, whether private equity, trade buyers, or institutional, are not buying your current performance. They are buying their confidence in your future performance. That confidence is built, or destroyed, by what they find when they look beneath the revenue line. Do you have a governance framework that can survive the departure of its founder? Do your clinical and commercial systems scale independently of the individuals who built them? Is your workforce model a genuine asset, or a fragility dressed up as culture? These are the questions that determine whether a business is merely growing or genuinely investable. Let me give you one pattern that comes up in almost every diligence process I have been close to. Two businesses, similar revenue, similar EBITDA, similar growth trajectory. In the first, the founder is in every meaningful conversation. Clinical standards, recruitment decisions, lease negotiations, the relationship with the bank. The business runs because the founder is in the room. In the second, the founder has spent three years deliberately taking themselves out of the room. There is a clinical director who owns standards, an operations lead who owns the estate, a finance function that talks to the bank without translation. The numbers look the same on the page. The valuations do not. The first business is worth what the founder is worth, less a discount for the risk of their departure. The second is worth what the business is worth, with a premium for the fact that it can be bought, integrated, and scaled. That gap, between a business that depends on its founder and a business that has outgrown its founder, is often the single largest valuation lever in the entire process. It is also the hardest one to engineer in the twelve months before a sale. It takes years. The problem is timing. Most founders start thinking about investability at the point capital arrives. By then, the structural decisions have already been made. The operating model is what it is. The governance is what it is. The workforce dependencies are baked in. You can tidy around the edges in a due diligence process, but you cannot rebuild the foundations while the building is occupied. The window to build investability is before capital arrives. Not during the raise, and certainly not during the transaction. It is in the two, three, or four years before any formal process begins that the real work happens. This is when governance frameworks are put in place not because an investor is watching but because the business needs them to scale. When operating systems are standardised not to satisfy a vendor due diligence questionnaire but because inconsistency is a clinical and commercial risk. When workforce strategy is written down, funded, and tested, not left as a set of informal norms that only work because the right person is in the room. I am conscious that this sounds like a counsel of perfection. Most dental businesses are not built in conditions that allow for ideal sequencing. Founders are clinical by training and often commercial by necessity, not design. The pressures of running a practice, or a group of practices, leave little space for the kind of structural thinking that investors reward. I understand that. I have worked with enough founders to know that the gap between what they know they should be doing and what the business allows them to do is real, and it is significant. But that gap is also the opportunity. The businesses that will command the strongest valuations in the next cycle of dental consolidation are not the ones growing fastest today. They are the ones that are building investability now, quietly, without an active process, without a mandate, without a banker on the phone. They are the ones whose founders have decided that the strategy comes before the capital, not after it. The dental sector is consolidating at a rate and with a sophistication that would have been unrecognisable ten years ago. The capital is more experienced, the processes are more rigorous, and the gap between a business that looks investable and a business that actually is has never been more consequential. Growth is no longer enough to guarantee a good outcome. It never really was. If a sophisticated buyer looked under the bonnet of your business tomorrow, what would they find? Not the version you would present in a management meeting. The version that exists when you are not in the room. That is the business they are buying. And that is where strategy begins.

Next read: The three prices of a dental business →