What the IC workflow really has to do
Strip it down and the investment committee workflow takes a deal from first look to a documented yes or no. The deal comes in, gets screened against the strategy, goes through diligence, the team writes the IC memo, the committee discusses and votes, conditions get attached, and then the money goes out and monitoring starts.
Here’s the thing we see again and again. Investors, auditors and SEBI rarely question whether the deal was clever. They ask whether the process was followed. Was it within the fund’s strategy and concentration limits? Did members declare conflicts? Was there a quorum? Were the conditions met before the drawdown? If you can’t show that quickly, a good deal starts to look like a problem.
The stages, one by one
- Deal intake. Capture sector, ticket size, instrument and source in proper fields, not in an email body.
- Screening. A quick go or no-go against strategy, concentration limits and exclusion lists.
- Due diligence. Financial, legal, technical and ESG checklists, each with an owner and a date.
- IC memo. Written from a standard template, with attachments and a version history.
- Conflict declarations. Every member confirms before voting, not in a line buried in the minutes.
- Voting. Votes, dissent and quorum recorded against the exact memo version that was discussed.
- Conditions precedent. Each condition tracked to closure before any disbursement or drawdown.
- After the decision. Term sheet, documentation, drawdown and monitoring all hang off the same record.
Where it usually goes wrong
Rarely a bad decision. Usually an unprovable one. Votes come in by reply-all at different times. The memo that got approved isn’t quite the one in the shared folder anymore. Conditions are tracked in someone’s notebook. Conflicts exist only as a sentence in the minutes.
It all feels fine until the worst possible moment: an LP’s operational due diligence, an internal audit, a SEBI inspection, or a dispute about whether a condition was really satisfied before funds went out.
How to automate the investment committee workflow, step by step
- Write down how your IC actually works today: the charter, quorum, who votes, how conflicts are handled and which limits apply. Automate the real process, not an idealised one.
- Standardise the IC memo. Agree one template with the sections every memo must have (our free IC memo template is a starting point), so memos are comparable and complete.
- Replace the email intake with a form: sector, ticket size, instrument, source and strategy fit as proper fields.
- Set up the stages and checklists (screening, diligence workstreams, memo, vote, conditions) with an owner and a due date on every item.
- Configure voting: quorum, recusal for declared conflicts, dissent notes, and the rule that votes are tied to a frozen memo version.
- Track conditions precedent as items with evidence, and block the drawdown or disbursement until they are closed.
- Add the views people need: pipeline by stage, pending votes, days in stage, and a decision record you can export for LPs.
- Run one or two live deals through the new workflow alongside the old one, fix what does not fit, then switch over.
What to look for in IC software
- One deal record from intake to monitoring. Not five tools stitched together.
- Stages, checklists and templates that match your policy, not a generic sales pipeline.
- Voting with quorum rules, recusals and dissent notes tied to the memo version.
- Condition tracking with owners and evidence before release of funds.
- Access by role and attribute, so deal teams, IC members, compliance and ops each see the right things.
- An audit trail you can hand over, and decision records you can export for LPs.
Getting there without a long IT project
Fund administration and portfolio platforms are powerful, but they tend to have firm opinions about how your IC should work. Custom builds take quarters and then someone has to maintain them.
The lighter option is to configure the workflow yourselves on a no-code platform: intake forms, stages, checklists, voting rules, dashboards. When the IC policy changes, the ops team changes the setup. Averoic runs this way in production at a SEBI-registered alternative investment manager, where new lending processes now reach the market up to 60% faster and audit questions that used to take days get answered in minutes.
Works with alternative lenders, AIFs, NBFCs and insurers in India on approvals, maker-checker controls and audit readiness.
See how your own process would run on Averoic — configured, not coded, with maker-checker controls and a tamper-evident audit trail built in.
Frequently asked questions
What is an investment committee workflow?
It is the structured process a fund follows to take a deal from intake through screening, due diligence, an IC memo, committee voting and conditions to a documented decision, with every step, vote and approval recorded.
How should IC votes be recorded?
Record each vote, recusal and dissent against the specific version of the IC memo, with timestamps, quorum validation and conflict declarations, so the decision can be shown to investors, auditors and regulators.
How do you automate the investment committee workflow at an AIF?
Document the current IC process and charter, standardise the IC memo template, move deal intake into a structured form, configure stages and diligence checklists with owners, set voting rules (quorum, recusals, dissent) tied to a frozen memo version, track conditions precedent before drawdown, and pilot one live deal before switching over.
Can an AIF run its investment committee on a no-code platform?
Yes. A governed no-code platform like Averoic lets the fund configure deal intake, diligence checklists, IC memo templates, voting and quorum rules, condition tracking and dashboards, with role-based access and a tamper-evident audit trail.