3 biggest ‘no-nos’ in post-merger technology integration

In technology M&A, integration projects come down to decisions. Sure, the technical elements guide the work, but the key to long-term success is to make the right decisions up front about platform, workflow and potential consolidation strategy that all tie to business objectives.

In a shocking number of cases, however, vendors rush such integration decisions, or operate on assumptions that later reveal themselves to be sinkholes, costing time, resources and customer patience. So just as we advise technology providers to look for common “surprises” that can hide from deal teams in M&A due diligence, we also have a list of “no-nos” to consider when making key decisions about how to manage integration projects. But unlike our surprises list, which was about investigating technology claims that are often dubious, our “no-nos” list is about assumptions, especially those that underestimate the potential value of another approach.

What do you need to keep in mind before you make these critical integration decisions?

In this Spend Matters PRO series, we’re outlining the most common potholes and hidden sinkholes that technology providers encounter in post-acquisition technology integration. Because without foreknowledge, acquisition dreams quickly morph into maintenance nightmares from which vendors may never wake up. And we want you to have a chance of getting it right.

For vendors getting up to speed on post-merger integration strategy, consider reviewing our earlier briefs, where we defined five specific stages of post-merger technology integration, as well as our follow-on brief about perhaps the most important upfront integration planning question (to maintain or note to maintain?). See:

The 3 biggest ‘no-nos’ in post-merger technology integration — and what to do instead