De-risk capital allocation in complex, multi-stakeholder environments
Allocating capital in real estate, mobility, energy, water, or large-scale development is no longer only about projected returns. Investments unfold in politically sensitive, fragmented, and fast-changing environments.
Performance increasingly depends on stakeholder acceptance, regulatory context, and long-term uncertainty. Decisions that ignore these dimensions expose portfolios to delay, escalation, and loss of value.
Traditional investment processes limit teams to evaluating a handful of options at a time. Project lists are static, scenarios are built manually, and stakeholder dynamics are time-consuming to track and rarely factored in systematically.
This makes it hard to compare opportunities consistently, test alternatives broadly, or anticipate friction before it materializes.
SOLV's Investment Navigator structures hundreds of investment options into living portfolios—continuously updated rather than fixed at a point in time.
Options are evaluated across cost, stakeholder risk, and technical impact, allowing teams to explore more alternatives and understand trade-offs early.
The platform generates and compares options automatically while keeping strategic choices with leadership. Market signals, stakeholder positions, and public sentiment feed into comparative risk profiles and impact scores that evolve as conditions change.
KEY PLATFORM OUTPUTS
Options that can be created, adjusted, grouped, and revisited throughout the investment cycle—not locked into static project lists.
What changed in our shortlist since the steering committee last met?
Which sites did we rule out, and can we revisit them if market conditions shift?
Where do we stand on the mixed-use options versus the residential-only alternatives?
Automatic scoring across stakeholder values and project criteria, with side-by-side comparison under different weightings. Ratings can be reviewed, edited, and benchmarked.
How does the waterfront development compare to the inland site on community acceptance?
What happens to our ranking if environmental impact matters more than speed to market?
Which option performs best if we need to prioritise local employment?
Algorithmic weighting of options within defined constraints to reduce stakeholder risk while preserving strategic intent.
What's the best mix of interventions if we can't exceed €50M and the transit link is non-negotiable?
Which sites should we prioritise if the council insists on affordable housing in the package?
How much more resistance do we take on by keeping the logistics hub in scope?
Full audit trail showing which sources informed each rating, how scores were calculated, and why the optimiser selected this portfolio. Every output can be traced back to its inputs and reproduced.
Why did we deprioritise the northern site in favour of the eastern corridor?
What evidence supports our assumption that community acceptance is higher for Option B?
If the board challenges this recommendation, what's our documented basis?
