KHAKrause
Hospitality
Advisory
Methodology

Auditable frameworks. Reproducible scores. Decision-grade outputs.

Three frameworks anchor the work. HERI-40 reconciles a chain's selling readiness with the M&A cycle. The Operational Readiness Score (ORS) measures the variables a chain controls. The Market Timing Score (MTS) measures the variables it does not. Each is documented end-to-end in the public record below — calibrated against documented hospitality transactions from 2018 through 2025.

The three frameworks
HERI-40
Hospitality Equity Readiness Index
0–200, four zones

Reconciles operational selling readiness with the M&A cycle phase. Translates exit readiness into a single signal: premium window open, standard trade feasible, or risk territory.

Read the executive summary
ORS
Operational Readiness Score
0–100, five sub-components

Measures how sale-ready a chain is from the inside. Five orthogonal dimensions — unit-economics integrity, system standardisation, capital-structure cleanliness, talent depth, and reporting fidelity. Stand-up inside a single quarter.

Read the ORS dimension
MTS
Market Timing Score
0–100, complementary to ORS

Measures how favourable the external M&A window is. ORS measures what you control. MTS measures what you do not — but still have to read correctly. Documented case: Vapiano 2019–2020.

Read the MTS dimension
HERI-40 in one paragraph

A 0-to-200 score. Four zones. One signal a board, a CFO, or a deal team can act on.

HERI-40 reconciles two readings that almost never converge inside a chain. The investment bank delivers a brand valuation. The board delivers a gut read. The CFO delivers a spreadsheet that no one can benchmark against other chains in the sector. HERI-40 closes that gap.

The score combines an operator-side reading (ORS) with a market-side reading (MTS). The combination places the chain into one of four zones — premium exit window, standard trade feasible, watch and prepare, or risk territory. The zone tells the chain what to do next; the sub-scores tell it what to fix.

The framework is documented end-to-end in the public record. An operator can compute the score themselves, with data already produced for routine consolidation reporting.

Why decision-grade

The frameworks are built to four standards. Each one rules out a category of advisory output we will not produce.

Reproducible

An operator computes the score themselves, using data available inside any professionally run chain. The framework does not rely on proprietary inputs we keep behind a paywall.

Auditable

Every weight, every cut-off, every zone boundary is documented in the public framework. A board, a CFO, or a deal team can rebuild the calculation independently.

Falsifiable

The framework is calibrated against documented transactions from 2018 through 2025 — including the negative cases (Vapiano, Red Lobster, casual-dining roll-ups). Where it has missed, that is documented too.

Decision-grade

The output is a number a buyer or a board can take into a deal room. Not a brand valuation, not a gut read, not a benchmark you cannot benchmark against — a score.

Applied in engagements

The same frameworks underwrite every engagement we take.

Whether the question is a market entry, an expansion-risk audit, a concept-fit read, a competitive-positioning review, or a portfolio-growth diagnostic — HERI-40, ORS, and MTS are the underlying spine. The work delivers a score, the sub-scores, the zone, and the recommendation. Defensible to a board. Defensible to a deal team.

See the engagement types →
Operator-grounded market judgment·Investor-literate advisory·DACH-rooted, Europe-focused foodservice insight·Decision-grade intelligence
Engage

Bring a decision; we bring the framework. The output is something a board can act on.

Brief the Founder