Over the past six years working with 250+ emerging fund managers across every continent, I’ve noticed a troubling pattern. Most aspiring GPs can articulate their investment thesis in vivid detail. They know their target sectors, geographies, and check sizes. They’ve researched comparable funds and can cite industry statistics with precision.
But when I ask them to walk me through their complete fund strategy—from dealflow sources through portfolio construction to LP value proposition—the conversation often stalls.
That’s why we created the Fund Strategy Canvas. Not as another framework to add complexity, but as a visual tool to force honest conversations about the eleven interconnected elements that determine whether a fund succeeds or struggles.
Why A Canvas? Why Not A Pitch Deck?
Traditional fundraising decks are linear presentations designed to persuade. The Fund Strategy Canvas is different. It’s a thinking tool that reveals gaps, inconsistencies, and opportunities in your fund strategy before you start pitching LPs.
Think of it as pre-flight checklist. Would you want a pilot who skipped their checklist because they felt confident? Your LPs don’t want you skipping the hard strategic questions just because you’re excited about your investment thesis.
Introducing the Fund Strategy Canvas
The canvas forces you to address eleven critical building blocks:
Top (Core Strategy):
- Thesis, Size
- Strategy
- Unfair Advantage
Left Side (LP Relationship):
- LP Economics
- Anchor LPs
- LP Mix
- LP Value Add
Right Side (Investment Execution):
- Team & Track Record
- Dealflow
- Portfolio Construction
- Value Add
Bottom (Value Creation & Exit):
- Fund Economics
- Legal Setup
- Value Creation & Exit Strategy
- Exit Experience
Want to get started on your own Fund Strategy?
Download your copy here.
The Canvas In Action: Two Real-World Examples
To illustrate how the Fund Strategy Canvas works in practice, let me walk you through two emerging manager cases (both are ‘illustrative examples, based on multiple real life fund manager I’ve worked with). Both are building funds in frontier markets. Both face skeptical LPs. But their approaches to the canvas reveal very different strategic choices and challenges.
Case Study 1: Nairobi Impact Partners – Climate & Agriculture Fund
Background: Sarah Kimani and David Omondi launched Nairobi Impact Partners in 2024, targeting a $30M first close for their climate-focused impact fund across East Africa. Sarah brings 12 years from the International Finance Corporation working on climate finance. David is a second-time founder who built and exited an agritech startup in Kenya for $8M.
Let me walk through how they completed their Fund Strategy Canvas and what it revealed.
Thesis, Size & Strategy (Core):
Sarah and David’s investment thesis centers on climate adaptation technologies for smallholder farmers across Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, and Rwanda. They’re targeting early-stage companies (Series A) that have proven product-market fit with $500K-$3M annual revenue.
Their $30M fund size reflects careful math: 15-18 portfolio companies with initial checks of $1.5-2M and 50% reserved for follow-on capital. This sizing came from honest assessment of the deal pipeline and realistic assumptions about ownership targets (15-25%) given competitive dynamics in the region.
Unfair Advantage:
Here’s where their canvas work got interesting. Initially, they listed “deep market knowledge” and “strong networks” as advantages. These are table stakes, not unfair advantages.
Through canvas discussions, we identified their real edge: Sarah’s relationships with eight DFIs and impact investors who collectively manage $15B in Africa-focused capital, combined with David’s operational credibility with founders (he’s been in their shoes). More importantly, David’s exit experience means he can credibly guide portfolio companies through M&A processes—a rare skill in East African VC.
Team & Track Record:
Sarah brings investment experience but has never led a fund. David brings entrepreneurial credibility but limited investment experience. The canvas revealed a critical gap: neither has fundraising experience for a fund.
Their solution: they brought on Fatima Hassan as a third partner (20% carry). Fatima previously raised $50M for an East African growth equity fund and brings LP relationships and fundraising expertise. This addition fundamentally strengthened their canvas.
Dealflow:
Their initial dealflow plan was generic: “attend conferences, build reputation, take inbound.” The canvas forced specificity.
They mapped four distinct dealflow channels:
- Accelerator partnerships: Formal partnerships with three climate-focused accelerators (CFAN, AgFunder, and VC4A) giving them first look at graduates
- DFI referrals: Sarah’s IFC relationships yield 3-4 qualified referrals monthly
- Founder network: David’s founder community provides peer referrals
- University partnerships: Relationships with Strathmore University and University of Nairobi entrepreneurship programs
The canvas revealed they needed to convert these channels from ideas to executed partnerships with specific metrics. They now track dealflow by channel and measure conversion rates.
Portfolio Construction:
Initial plan: “15-20 companies, initial checks $1-2M, reserve 50% for follow-on.”
The canvas revealed this was too vague. We modeled specific scenarios:
- What if their best companies need $5M Series B rounds? Their 50% reserve only covers 3-4 companies.
- What happens to ownership if they can’t participate in follow-on rounds?
- How do they handle bridge rounds between Series A and B?
Their refined approach: Initial checks of $1.5-2M targeting 15-20% ownership. Reserve capital structured as $750K automatic pro-rata for winners (top 5 companies) and $250K discretionary for opportunistic follow-ons. This precision came directly from canvas work.
Value Add:
“We help companies scale” is not value add—it’s aspiration. The canvas forced them to specify exactly how they add value:
Operational Support: David leads quarterly operational reviews with portfolio CEOs, focusing on unit economics, go-to-market strategy, and fundraising preparation.
Talent Recruiting: Fatima maintains a curated database of 50+ climate tech executives and makes 2-3 introductions monthly to portfolio companies.
Customer Introductions: Sarah’s DFI relationships translate into corporate customer introductions for B2B portfolio companies.
Climate Finance Access: Sarah advises portfolio companies on accessing $200M+ in climate finance facilities (grants, concessional debt) that complement equity.
Anchor LPs & LP Mix:
This is where many emerging managers struggle. Sarah and David’s initial answer: “We’ll raise from impact investors and DFIs.”
The canvas revealed the chicken-and-egg problem: DFIs want to see commercial investors committed before they participate. Commercial investors want to see strong deal terms. Impact-only funds often struggle with both.
Their breakthrough came from mapping their specific anchor LP strategy:
Target Anchor: AfricInvest (existing relationship through Sarah’s IFC work). Target commitment: $5M for credibility with other LPs.
LP Mix Strategy:
- DFIs/Impact (40%): IFC, FMO, Norfund—patient capital with impact measurement requirements
- Family Offices (30%): East African families with agricultural interests seeking impact exposure
- Fund of Funds (20%): European impact-focused funds of funds
- Corporates (10%): Strategic corporate LPs from agriculture value chain
LP Economics & Fund Economics:
Their initial terms: “2% management fee, 20% carry, standard 8-year fund life.”
The canvas revealed misalignment. DFI LPs increasingly push for 1.5% management fees on impact funds. But at $30M fund size with three partners, 1.5% generates only $450K annually—insufficient for team salaries, office, travel, and operations.
Their solution emerged from canvas work:
- Management fee: 2% on committed capital for first four years, stepping down to 1.5% on invested capital thereafter
- Carry: 20% with 8% preferred return to LPs
- Management fee offsets: 100% of fees offset against carry (industry standard)
- Working capital: Secured $500K working capital line from a supportive family office to smooth cash flow gaps
This precision came from modeling their fund economics line-by-line, a process the canvas forced them to complete before pitching LPs.
Legal Setup:
Initially: “We’ll set up in Mauritius because everyone does.”
The canvas forced examination of whether Mauritius actually served their strategy. Their LP mix includes US family offices (Mauritius has tax treaty limitations with US), European funds of funds (require specific regulatory structures), and DFIs (have varying Mauritius preferences).
Their refined approach: Delaware LP as main fund vehicle with Mauritius parallel fund for LPs requiring it. This dual structure emerged from mapping their specific LP requirements through the canvas, not copying what other funds do.
Value Creation & Exit Strategy:
Here’s where impact funds often hand-wave. “Strategic acquisitions or IPOs” doesn’t cut it when your portfolio companies are $10M revenue Kenyan agritech startups.
The canvas forced Sarah and David to map realistic exit paths:
Primary Exit Routes:
- Strategic acquisitions by regional agriculture companies (Equity Bank, KCB Bank expanding into agriculture fintech; Safaricom entering agtech)
- Acquisitions by multinational agriculture companies (Olam, Yara, Syngenta acquiring African technology platforms)
- Later-stage fund acquisitions (Novastar Ventures, TLcom Capital buying positions for their growth funds)
- Development finance exits (Selling to impact investors willing to accept lower returns for sustained impact)
Exit Preparation Process:
Starting Year 2 of each investment, they host annual “Exit Strategy Board Days” mapping potential acquirers and preparing companies. This systematic approach came from canvas work revealing that exits don’t happen accidentally. (did you know, the team picked that up here.)
Exit Experience:
David’s $8M agritech exit provides credible experience, but the canvas revealed a gap: Sarah has never led an M&A process. Their solution: formal advisory relationship with a Nairobi-based M&A advisor who will mentor them through their first 2-3 exits while also sourcing buyers.
LP Value Add:
Final canvas element: what value do LPs bring beyond capital?
Their strategic LPs:
- IFC: Provides regulatory navigation support across East Africa
- Family offices: Provide customer introductions to agriculture value chain
- AfricInvest: Provides co-investment capital and M&A support
This specificity helped them target LPs strategically, not just whoever might write checks.
Case Study 2: Riyadh AI Ventures – Enterprise AI Fund in MENA
Background: Omar launched Riyadh AI Ventures in 2024 targeting a $40M fund focused on enterprise AI applications across Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Egypt. Omar spent eight years at Google leading AI partnerships in MENA, followed by three years as Chief Product Officer at Careem.
His canvas journey revealed very different challenges than Nairobi Impact Partners.
Thesis, Size & Strategy:
Omar’s thesis: Enterprise AI applications built specifically for Arabic-language markets and regional regulatory requirements. While global AI companies dominate consumer applications, enterprise AI for Arabic contexts remains underserved.
His $40M target reflects aggressive sizing for a first-time fund. The canvas forced honest conversation about whether this was realistic. Most first-time MENA VC funds close at $15-25M. Omar’s argument: his Google relationships give him access to larger institutional LPs, and MENA AI deals require larger checks than typical seed funds deploy.
Through canvas work, we stresstested this assumption. If he only reaches $25M, can the strategy still work? His answer: yes, but with 12 companies instead of 18, and higher ownership targets.
Unfair Advantage:
Omar’s initial answer: “Deep AI expertise and strong corporate relationships.”
The canvas pushed deeper. What makes him unfairly advantaged versus every other AI investor globally?
His real edge emerged: He’s one of three people globally who deeply understand both frontier AI technology AND Arabic natural language processing challenges AND have relationships with every major enterprise buyer in MENA (through his Google and Careem networks). This intersection is genuinely unique.
Moreover, his Google relationships mean he can broker access to compute resources and AI tooling for portfolio companies—a material advantage when GPU access is a startup constraint.
Team & Track Record:
Omar is a solo GP—a red flag for most LPs. The canvas made this gap explicit.
His solution: Instead of bringing on full partners (which would dilute his carry significantly), he structured venture partner relationships with three domain experts:
- Technical VP: Former Meta AI researcher based in Dubai (15% carry, focused on technical due diligence)
- Enterprise Sales VP: Former Oracle EMEA executive (10% carry, focused on portfolio company sales acceleration)
- Finance Partner: Former Goldman Sachs MENA (10% carry, focused on fund operations and later-stage rounds)
This structure came from canvas work revealing he needed team credibility without full partner economics.
Dealflow:
Omar’s initial dealflow plan relied heavily on inbound flow from his reputation. The canvas revealed this was insufficient and risky.
His refined four-channel approach:
- Corporate innovation programs: Formal partnerships with ARAMCO, STC, and Emirates NBD innovation labs to see enterprise AI pilots
- University partnerships: MIT Jameel Clinic, KAUST, and American University of Cairo AI programs
- AI Accelerators: Partnerships with Google for Startups MENA and Hub71
- Founder outbound: Personal outreach to AI founders in stealth mode (leveraging his Google network to identify engineers leaving FAANG companies to start companies)
The canvas forced him to build redundancy into dealflow rather than hoping inbound would materialize.
Portfolio Construction:
Omar’s initial portfolio plan: “15-20 companies, initial checks $2-3M.”
The canvas revealed mathematical problems. At $40M with $2-3M initial checks and 50% reserves:
- He could do 6-7 initial investments, not 15-20
- OR he could do smaller $1M checks but sacrifice ownership
- OR he needed to raise significantly more capital
His refined approach came from modeling multiple scenarios:
Final Portfolio Model: 12-15 companies with tiered investment approach:
- Seed/Pre-Seed (3-4 companies): $500K-$1M initial checks, targeting 15-20% ownership
- Series A (6-8 companies): $2-3M initial checks, targeting 12-15% ownership
- Series A+ (2-3 companies): $4-5M initial checks in breakout companies showing enterprise traction
Reserve capital: 40% of fund (higher than typical because MENA AI rounds are growing quickly and he needs pro-rata protection).
This precision only emerged through canvas modeling exercises.
Value Add:
Omar’s initial value proposition: “I help companies build AI products and scale sales.”
The canvas forced specificity on HOW:
Technical Value:
- Quarterly AI strategy sessions with portfolio CTOs
- Access to Google Cloud credits ($100K per portfolio company)
- Introductions to AI researchers for technical hiring
- Architecture reviews for scaling challenges
Go-To-Market Value:
- Direct introductions to CIOs at 15 enterprise customers (ARAMCO, STC, Saudi Airlines, etc.)
- Quarterly enterprise sales workshops
- Pricing and packaging strategy sessions
- RFP response support for government contracts
Capital Value:
- Introductions to Series B funds (Balderton, Accel, Insight Partners expanding to MENA)
- Guidance on US/European expansion strategy
- Financial modeling and board presentation coaching
This detail makes his value proposition credible and measurable.
Anchor LPs & LP Mix:
Omar’s breakthrough on the canvas: his Google relationships extended to GV (Google Ventures) considering MENA exposure. If he could convince GV to commit $5M as anchor, it would provide massive signaling to other LPs.
His LP mix strategy:
- Strategic Corporates (30%): Google Ventures, Saudi Telecom, Aramco Ventures
- Sovereign Wealth/Government (25%): Saudi Venture Capital Company (SVC), Mubadala
- US Tech VCs (25%): Firms wanting MENA exposure without full fund (Kleiner Perkins, Accel)
- Family Offices (20%): Tech-savvy MENA families
The canvas revealed a tension: US VCs want standard Delaware LP terms. Sovereign wealth wants specific governance rights. Family offices want quarterly liquidity updates. He needed fund administration capable of serving this complex LP base.
LP Economics & Fund Economics:
Omar’s initial terms: “Standard 2 and 20.”
The canvas revealed that “standard” means different things to different LPs. Sovereign wealth funds in MENA increasingly demand 1.5% management fees. US tech VCs expect 2.5% fees for emerging managers with operational support.
His solution: Tiered fee structure:
- Tier 1 LPs (>$5M commitments): 1.5% management fee
- Tier 2 LPs ($2-5M commitments): 2% management fee
- Tier 3 LPs (<$2M commitments): 2.5% management fee
Carry: 20% with 8% preferred return (European LPs require preferred return; US VCs prefer no hurdle—this was a compromise).
Fund Economics Working Capital:
At $40M with blended 2% management fee, Omar generates $800K annually. As solo GP with three venture partners, this covers:
- Omar salary: $200K
- Venture partner retainers: $150K total
- Operations/legal/admin: $150K
- Office/travel/events: $100K
- Future hires: $200K
The canvas revealed his management fee economics were tight but workable. However, he needed $750K working capital to cover the 18-month period between first close and becoming cash-flow positive. He secured this from his anchor LP as a bridge loan.
Legal Setup:
Omar’s initial plan: “DIFC (Dubai International Financial Centre) because I’m based in Dubai.”
The canvas revealed problems: DIFC has limited tax treaty network. His LP mix includes US institutions who want ERISA compliance, European funds requiring specific regulatory treatment, and Saudi investors who need Sharia-compliant structures.
His solution: Parallel fund structure:
- Delaware LP: Main fund vehicle for US/European LPs
- DIFC Parallel Fund: For MENA-based LPs requiring regional structure
- Cayman Feeder: For specific LPs requiring offshore structure
This complexity emerged only from mapping his actual LP requirements through the canvas.
Value Creation & Exit Strategy:
Here’s where MENA AI funds face reality checks. There are limited acquirers for $50M AI companies in the region. The canvas forced Omar to map realistic scenarios:
Exit Paths:
- Strategic acquisitions by MENA tech companies: Careem, Noon, Tabby acquiring AI capabilities
- Strategic acquisitions by global tech companies expanding to MENA: Google, Microsoft, Salesforce buying regional AI platforms
- Strategic acquisitions by MENA enterprises: ARAMCO, STC, SABIC acquiring AI vendors
- US/European expansion then exit: Companies that start in MENA but expand globally and exit to US/EU acquirers
- Later-stage fund exits: Selling to growth equity funds (General Atlantic, Insight, Tiger Global)
The canvas revealed a critical insight: His best exits likely require portfolio companies to expand beyond MENA. This informed his value-add strategy around US/European expansion support.
Exit Experience:
Gap revealed by canvas: Omar has zero M&A experience. He’s built products and partnerships, but never closed a company sale.
His solution: Advisory board including two former corp dev executives (one from Google, one from Microsoft) who will mentor him through exits and potentially broker introductions.
LP Value Add:
Beyond capital, what do his LPs provide?
- Google Ventures: Technical credibility, Silicon Valley network, potential acquisition path
- Aramco Ventures: Enterprise customer access, regional credibility
- US Tech VCs: Series B fundraising connections, US expansion support
- Family Offices: Follow-on capital for breakout companies
The canvas helped him design an LP stack where each category provides strategic value, not just capital.
What The Canvas Reveals That Pitch Decks Hide
After walking through both funds, several patterns emerge:
1. Specificity Separates Strong Strategies From Weak Ones
“We source great deals through our network” is generic. “We have formal partnerships with three accelerators generating 12 qualified leads monthly with 15% conversion” is specific and measurable.
The canvas forces this specificity. Every vague statement gets challenged: How exactly? How many? With whom? By when?
2. Gaps Become Visible Before They Become Fatal
Both funds discovered critical gaps through canvas work:
- Nairobi Impact Partners: No fundraising experience (solved by adding third partner)
- Riyadh AI Ventures: No M&A experience (solved by advisory relationships)
Finding these gaps on a canvas before pitching LPs is far better than discovering them during LP due diligence.
3. Trade-Offs Become Explicit
Fund strategy is about trade-offs:
- Nairobi Impact Partners chose slower growth and patient capital over aggressive returns
- Riyadh AI Ventures chose concentrated portfolio with larger checks over diversification
The canvas makes you own these trade-offs rather than claiming you can have everything.
4. Internal Alignment Precedes External Fundraising
Both fund teams had unspoken assumptions about strategy until they completed the canvas together. Sarah assumed they’d raise quickly from DFIs. David knew DFIs move slowly. The canvas surfaced this disagreement.
Omar assumed his venture partners understood the portfolio construction math. They didn’t. The canvas aligned everyone.
5. The LP Perspective Becomes Central
The canvas is organized around what LPs care about:
- Do you have defensible dealflow?
- Can you construct a portfolio that returns the fund?
- What’s your actual unfair advantage?
- Do you have exit credibility?
Working through the canvas from the LP perspective reveals whether your story holds together.
How To Use The Fund Strategy Canvas
Based on watching dozens of emerging managers work through the canvas, here’s my recommended process:
Week 1: Individual Completion
Each team member completes the canvas independently. Don’t discuss or align beforehand. You want to surface disagreements.
Week 2: Team Alignment Session
Bring your canvases together. Spend 3-4 hours going through each section. Where do you disagree? Why? What assumptions are you each making?
The disagreements are where the real work happens. If one partner thinks you’ll close the fund in 9 months and another thinks 18 months, that affects everything from working capital needs to fee structures.
Week 3-4: Gap Analysis and Modeling
For each canvas section, identify gaps and model solutions:
- Dealflow insufficient? Model three new sources with specific metrics
- Portfolio construction unclear? Build Excel model showing various scenarios
- Team incomplete? Define specific roles needed and start recruiting
Week 5-6: External Validation
Share the canvas with trusted advisors, potential LPs, and peer funds. Not as a pitch, but as a strategy artifact. Ask:
- Where is our thinking unclear?
- What gaps do you see?
- What trade-offs would you make differently?
Week 7-8: Refinement
Revise the canvas based on feedback. The canvas should evolve as you learn.
Ongoing: Living Document
The canvas isn’t a one-time exercise. Revisit it quarterly:
- Are dealflow channels performing as expected?
- Is portfolio construction working?
- Do you need to adjust LP mix based on fundraising reality?
Common Canvas Mistakes
After coaching 50+ funds through the canvas, I’ve seen recurring mistakes:
Mistake 1: Filling It Out Alone
The canvas’s power comes from team discussion. If you fill it out alone and present it to your team, you miss the alignment benefit.
Mistake 2: Generic Statements
“Strong network” is not an unfair advantage. “Exclusive partnership with the largest fintech accelerator in East Africa” is an unfair advantage.
The canvas demands specificity. If you can’t measure it, it’s probably not specific enough.
Mistake 3: Skipping Hard Sections
Many emerging managers gloss over exit strategy or LP economics because they’re uncertain. The uncertainty is exactly why you need to work through these sections.
Use the canvas to surface what you don’t know. Then learn it.
Mistake 4: Making It Static
Your canvas will change as you learn. Nairobi Impact Partners revised their canvas four times during fundraising as they learned what resonated with LPs.
Treat the canvas as a living strategy document, not a completed artifact.
Mistake 5: Confusing It With A Pitch Deck
The canvas is for internal strategy alignment. Your pitch deck is for external fundraising. They serve different purposes.
Complete the canvas first. Then build your pitch deck from the aligned strategy.
Why This Matters Now
The venture capital landscape is becoming increasingly competitive. LPs are more sophisticated and selective. “Good enough” fund strategies don’t get funded.
The funds that succeed are those with:
- Crystal-clear differentiation
- Specific, measurable strategies
- Realistic understanding of their advantages and gaps
- Alignment between partners on hard trade-offs
The Fund Strategy Canvas doesn’t guarantee success. But it dramatically increases your odds by forcing the hard conversations before you pitch LPs.
Every successful fund I’ve worked with has, in some form, worked through these eleven building blocks. The canvas simply makes the process systematic rather than haphazard.
Getting Started
Step one, download your personal copy here.
If you’re building a fund, start with the canvas before you write your pitch deck. Gather your team, block out a full day, and work through each section with brutal honesty.
The gaps you discover will be uncomfortable. That discomfort is the point. Better to discover them on the canvas than in LP meetings.
Both Nairobi Impact Partners and Riyadh AI Ventures are currently in market fundraising. Sarah reports that LPs consistently comment on how well-thought-through their strategy is. Omar closed his anchor LP ($5M from Google Ventures) after a single meeting—the GV partner said his clarity on portfolio construction and exit strategy was “the most sophisticated I’ve seen from an emerging manager.”
That clarity came from canvas work, not from being smarter or more experienced. It came from doing the hard thinking systematically.
Download the Fund Strategy Canvas at www.strategytools.io and start the work. Your future LPs—and your fund’s performance—will thank you.