Engineering Insights
Strategic recommendations for engineering excellence and cost optimization across the Lyvia portfolio
Universal Engineering Cost Drivers
Frequency of key cost drivers mentioned across all 37 portfolio companies
Strategic Recommendations
Establish a Cloud & DevOps Center of Excellence
Multiple portfolio companies independently manage Azure and AWS infrastructure. A centralized CoE can negotiate group-wide contracts, enforce FinOps best practices, and provide expert support — reducing cloud spend by an estimated 15–25% through reserved instances and savings plans.
Standardize Core Technology Stacks
The portfolio uses a fragmented mix of web and backend technologies. Standardizing on React/TypeScript for frontend and .NET or Python for backend services will reduce licensing costs, simplify cross-company talent mobility, and lower onboarding friction for new acquisitions.
Create a Group-Wide Talent Marketplace
Specialized expertise (e.g., SAP ABAP, Workday HCM, AI/ML) is siloed within individual companies. An internal talent marketplace would enable cross-company project assignments, improve resource utilization, and reduce the need for external contractors.
Centralize Software License Procurement
Many companies independently purchase licenses for common tools (Atlassian, Adobe, development IDEs, monitoring tools). Aggregating demand under group-wide enterprise agreements can yield 20–40% savings on software licensing costs.
Consolidate Business Intelligence Tooling
Multiple companies use different BI and analytics platforms. Standardizing on a single platform (Qlik or Power BI) leverages existing deep expertise within Mercanza and reduces per-seat licensing costs across the group.
Launch a Group-Wide AI Upskilling Program
With AI transforming all four sectors, a structured upskilling program — leveraging internal expertise from IT-HUSET (MindITH) and Trakk.ai — can accelerate AI adoption across the portfolio without relying on expensive external training providers.
High Engineering Density
Companies with >70% engineering staff — high-value technical assets
Norway
Sweden
Poland
Sweden
Sweden
Low Engineering Density
Companies with <20% engineering staff — potential for technical investment
Belgium
Sweden
Sweden
Sweden
Sweden
Sweden