PE Fund Performance: Anyone Can Hit Top Quartile Once, but Consistently?

To the community that works in PE (or VC, HF, etc.) I'm interested in hearing your perspective on what separates the wheat from the chaff when it comes to outperforming funds. Some may argue that when we look at a PE manager that consistently outperforms, what we are really seeing is an illusion created by chance (wiki "Fooled by Randomness" to understand the concept I am alluding to). If, however, you belong to the other camp, as I do, then it stands to reason that there is something to learn from the leaders in our industry.

To show what I mean, here's a (abbreviated) scoreboard for the most consistent managers:

Firm # total funds # in top Quartile # in 2nd Quartile
1st place: Veritas (buyout) 4 4 0
6th place: Waterland 5 4 1
13th place: TA Associates 10 7 2

(note that everyone's favorites ie: KKR are nowhere on this list, albeit there is a handicap for sheer size. Morgan Stanley Global Private Equity barely made the list with 3 1st Q's and 2 2nd Q's)

So, what is it that some PE managers do better than 75% of the others, fund after fund? Is it proprietary deal flow? Outsourcing everything possible in order to hone in with a singular focus on IRR? Is it better to have a deep bench full of excellent operating partners, or Ex-McKinsey MBA Associates? A narrow investment focus perhaps?

I have my own theories and intend to continue to educate and hopefully test them, but what does the WSO investment community at large think? How has your fund performed? What do you think it has done well as a business model? Where do you see room for improvement? If we could get the opinion of some people who have raised and realized a few funds as well, that would be awesome.