[Michal Rekosiewicz]

I would like to know from your experiences what were the most costly underestimations you have done in the pre-closing stages of M&A deal. Something that caused a large extra cost and effort in the integration phase that you did not foresee. In my case (acquiring a Czech Republic based company by a Canadian global system integrator) it was definitely communication skills. The target company operated mostly locally, so the level of English among most of employees was A2 at best. The assumption we made in the DD phase (since it was clear we need these people to work on global projects) was that implementing English lessons for all employees twice a week will quickly erase the problem. As it turned out, you can’t learn a language that quickly, especially if you are not willing to go the extra mile and spend your private time working on a new skill. This overly optimistic approach led to losing some key people and a need to recruit based on completely different criteria than before, in a region that did not have many skilled candidates for most of the positions.

[Miguel Cortijo Antona]

A frequent pre‑closing underestimation in M&A arises when acquirers assume a target’s operational maturity matches their own. In the automotive sector, this has been evident in integrations such as Schaeffler’s acquisition of Vitesco Technologies, where differing engineering workflows and documentation standards created unexpected delays during post‑closing alignment. Similarly, when companies like Bosch acquire specialized electronics firms, they often discover that manual prototype‑tracking, inconsistent BOM management, or fragmented change‑approval processes are still embedded in the target’s operations. These gaps can slow PPAP readiness, require extensive rework, and generate additional cost once OEM program deadlines approach.
Just as language‑readiness issues can derail integration, operational and cultural assumptions in automotive M&A often prove far more expensive than anticipated.

[Author]

Posts