PMI time frames

This topic contains 5 replies, has 6 voices, and was last updated by  Navdeep Singh 1 month, 2 weeks ago.

Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #94201

    Josh Liang Wee Ooi
    Participant

    We all know that the post merger integration period can be somewhat stressful internally – new structures, changes and lots of uncertainty for the business and its people. Many employees are surely anxious and psychologically affected. With this in mind, do you think there is an ideal time frame to complete the majority of integration? And given it deals also with employee psychology, do you think the size of the company matters when setting a time frame (e.g. can a large company take a longer period)?

    #94614

    Renata Porto
    Participant

    Hi Josh,
    I don’t believe one can set an “ideal time”, with that being said, if a proper assessment is conducted, and a solid integrated project plan is put in place, you can build an aggressive scenario in which you choose to prioritize the people element. Transparency and engagement then become key deliverables of your integration project. Let’s say depending on the size and nature of your organization, you would aim to have all staff onboarded and/or released by a certain date, which is just another way of saying, you will provide staff with answers as soon as possible, and you will communicate your plans also as soon as possible. The ideal date in my opinion is “as soon as possible”!

    Size of the company matters from the point of view that decisions regarding staff involve mapping exercises, assessment of skill sets and business needs, etc. The larger the company, the longer this process may take, depending of course, on how many resources you have dedicated to these efforts.

    #95556

    Erik Cornelius
    Participant

    There’s definitely a heavy element of “it depends.” The larger the companies involved, the longer the timetable, but if we’re talking “ideal,” my opinion is as follows:

    * If you’re making cuts, do that on Day 1, or as close as possible. Doing it once and then putting it behind you to build the new organization is tough, but it’s a lot tougher to deal with the slow bleed due to people leaving out of uncertainty (or being unproductive due to flagging motivation).

    * Many proposals I’ve seen indicate that 180 days should be sufficient to do the heavy lifting of integration; while there will be ongoing maintenance and support afterward, by then the “new normal” should largely be in place. Again, that tends to throttle up or down according to the size.

    I think there is some tolerance for larger companies taking longer to complete, but there’s also a sense that larger companies have more resources to commit… unless you’re talking about mega-mergers with multinational companies, I’d think the bulk of acquisitions would be completed in a year or less.

    #95623

    Anne Becker
    Participant

    I’m not sure if the size of the company matters as much as complexity of what is integrated. I’ve found that if you spell out the different phases of the integration and communicate it often, especially with updates, timing falls into place.

    #111847

    Riccardo Scaioli
    Participant

    I will focus my reply on why the size of the acquired company would not necessarily be a constraint or a factor that will lead to a different time for integration. If the acquirer company has a clear strategy in place and great processes, the goal of the integration can be achieved within the same time frame nevertheless the size of the acquired company, in fact:
    – the process would be the same and lead by the acquirer
    – even if the smaller company has less employees, most of the time the key stakeholders have many areas to be responsible for, while bigger acquired company can count different group on managers and stakeholders.

    #111928

    Navdeep Singh
    Participant

    I agree that during M&A activity we deal with different employee psychologies and it is somewhat the nature of M&A; however anything and everything all involved parties does is to achieve the end objective and create value for shareholders. Yes the size of the deal may matter, but what matters more is how effectively IMO Lead can communicate and associate people impacted with the M&A.

Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Loading.. Please wait