Managing Director & Senior Partner;
Chair, Asia-Pacific
Singapore
Related Expertise: Post-Merger Integration, Mergers and Acquisitions, Organization Design
By Neeraj Aggarwal, Chris Barrett, Niamh Dawson, Daniel Friedman, Nicholas Glenning, and Peter Goldsbrough
Acquisitions are a vital component of growth for many businesses. Yet a high proportion of deals fail to deliver value. Why? A common reason is that, because of time pressures and complexity, many companies struggle to integrate fully after the deal. Synergy targets that were so enticing in the run-up to the deal melt away under the realities of meshing two often very different organizations in a short time.
Most executives are quite aware of how to integrate properly. They are also ready to devote resources to making sure postmerger integration (PMI) gets the attention it requires. Yet during the stresses of the actual integration, they find that their organizations lack the ability to follow through. The trouble is not in any specific area but rather a multifaceted weakness.
For the vast majority of companies, acquisitions are infrequent events. (See Exhibit 1.) Most companies respond by reallocating resources and building or hiring temporary capability to handle integrations on an ad hoc basis.
Some companies, especially those whose strategies lead to more frequent acquisitions, are choosing to build more of this capability on a permanent basis in-house. They have trained people, designed processes and templates, and set up structures, moving beyond the common ad hoc approach. They have consolidated and spread the specialized PMI knowledge held by some people to the wider organization. But building these capabilities can be time consuming and difficult. Serial acquirers will most likely have the necessary commitment, experience, and ongoing incentive to overcome these hurdles. Others will need to be clear in advance about what it will take.
We have observed two principal models used by companies that choose to build a more lasting integration capability. (See Exhibit 2.)
Both approaches to building integration capabilities have merit. It is important that leaders fully understand the dynamics of tandem and standalone PMI enablement before committing to either one.
This report, the sixth in The Boston Consulting Group’s series on PMI, concentrates on the two different models used by companies in building capabilities for integration. Drawing on BCG’s extensive experience with clients in this area, it describes the models used as well as the challenges involved.
Managing Director & Senior Partner; Global Leader of Transactions & Integrations
Los Angeles
ABOUT BOSTON CONSULTING GROUP
Boston Consulting Group partners with leaders in business and society to tackle their most important challenges and capture their greatest opportunities. BCG was the pioneer in business strategy when it was founded in 1963. Today, we work closely with clients to embrace a transformational approach aimed at benefiting all stakeholders—empowering organizations to grow, build sustainable competitive advantage, and drive positive societal impact.
Our diverse, global teams bring deep industry and functional expertise and a range of perspectives that question the status quo and spark change. BCG delivers solutions through leading-edge management consulting, technology and design, and corporate and digital ventures. We work in a uniquely collaborative model across the firm and throughout all levels of the client organization, fueled by the goal of helping our clients thrive and enabling them to make the world a better place.
© Boston Consulting Group 2024. All rights reserved.
For information or permission to reprint, please contact BCG at permissions@bcg.com. To find the latest BCG content and register to receive e-alerts on this topic or others, please visit bcg.com. Follow Boston Consulting Group on Facebook and X (formerly Twitter).