Robotics / medical devices / industrial automation
Technical due diligence for robotics and medical devices.
Understand the engineering behind an investment or acquisition before the next capital decision.
Plays Research supports investors, acquirers and their advisers with an independent assessment of technical claims, development dependencies and the evidence behind the investment case.
The decision
A demonstration is a starting point.
For investors, acquirers, family offices and their advisers.
A system can perform well in a demonstration and still depend on conditions that differ from the operating plan. The review asks what has actually been shown, how representative the evidence is and what would be required to close material gaps.
Key questions
- Does the system deliver the claimed performance under relevant operating conditions?
- What engineering work, people and dependencies are needed to reach the planned scale?
- Which gaps could change cost, integration, timing or the ability to maintain the technology?
The work
Review relevant design records, test results, architecture, source code and development plans. Discuss findings with the engineering team and include site visits where agreed.
The technical risk memo sets out material findings, the supporting records, unresolved questions and their implications for cost and timing. It identifies the next evidence or engineering work needed, with proposed priorities and responsibilities.
Medical-device engineering due diligence
For investors and acquirers, the question is whether a medical device’s technical claims and development plan are supported by engineering evidence. Dr. Shen reviews system architecture, source code, hardware-software interfaces, test protocols and results, and development records. The analysis connects demonstrated performance and unresolved gaps to engineering resources, integration, cost and timing.
The review also examines the engineering implications of new and changing FDA requirements and guidance, including those affecting AI/ML-enabled medical devices. Relevant questions include whether validation evidence supports the intended use, how model updates are controlled, and what additional development, testing or documentation may be needed. Applicable requirements are distinguished from final guidance and draft recommendations when assessing cost and schedule implications.
Key-person dependency after the transaction is part of the review: whether critical design knowledge, build and test processes, and maintenance capability depend on particular founders or engineers, and what knowledge transfer is needed to sustain development after closing.
The deliverable is a technical risk memo linking material findings to source records, their implications for the investment decision, and priorities for further evidence, engineering work and post-transaction continuity.
What the technical risk memo contains
- Material findings and evidence. The claim being tested, the records behind the finding and the relevant operating conditions.
- Decision implications. Unresolved questions and their implications for development resources, cost, integration and timing.
- Next work. The additional evidence or engineering work needed, with proposed priorities and responsibilities.
The specific work products are agreed against the questions and available records.
Working with evidence
Materials, findings and the next step.
Materials the review may use
- Product specifications and the principal performance claims
- Test protocols, raw results and operating conditions
- Architecture, source code and hardware-software interfaces where relevant
- Development roadmap, engineering resources and key supplier dependencies
Questions the findings should answer
- Which assumptions can the investment team rely on?
- What engineering work could change the cost or schedule?
- Which questions should be resolved before the next commitment?
Illustrative review question
Does the cycle rate support the operating plan?
Illustrative example – not a client case. A robot demonstration may establish a nominal cycle rate while excluding replenishment, changeovers and recovery from stops. The review distinguishes that result from sustained saleable output across a representative shift.
For an investor, the gap affects the capacity assumption and operating plan. The next action is a representative test with agreed conditions and a named owner, so the deal team can assess the output assumption before committing.
Practical questions
A scope that fits the decision.
Is this useful before a full data room is available?
A focused review can begin with the evidence available at that stage. Findings identify what can be assessed, what remains open and which additional materials would most improve the decision.
Can the review include a Chinese engineering team?
Yes. Scope can include Chinese-language records, discussions in English or Mandarin, and agreed site work. Findings can be delivered in English for the investment team.
How do technical findings become useful to the deal team?
The memo connects material findings to development resources, timing, integration and the assumptions in the investment case. It gives the team questions and next actions tied to the decision deadline.
Start with the decision ahead.
Send Dr. Shen a brief, non-confidential outline of the technology, the decision and the deadline.
The initial discussion covers fit, available evidence and scope, followed by agreement on deliverables, timing, fees and confidentiality arrangements.