Why IT often determines whether value is actually realized in mergers and acquisitions

Mergers and acquisitions usually start with a clear strategic goal. Accelerating growth, increasing market share, unlocking new propositions or achieving economies of scale. On paper, the story is often correct. The business case has been calculated and expectations are high.

However, in practice it turns out that realizing that value is less obvious than previously thought. The reason rarely lies in the strategy itself. It is usually carefully drawn up. The challenge arises in the next phase, when two organizations actually have to work together. Then the question shifts from "why are we doing this?" to "how do we make this work?" And that is exactly where IT plays a bigger role than is often assumed.

The reality after closing: two worlds must become one

As soon as an acquisition is completed, a new phase begins. Processes must be aligned, teams must work together and decision-making must be redesigned. What used to be two organizations must function as one.

That sounds logical, but in practice this turns out to be a complex process. Not because organizations don't want to, but because they are set up differently. Different working methods, different definitions, different ways of managing.

Research by McKinsey and others shows that a large part of the value from mergers and acquisitions only arises after closing and that it is precisely in this phase that delays or loss of momentum occur when integration has insufficient control. What is often underestimated is that IT is not a separate part of that integration, but the place where those differences come together.

IT as a mirror of the organization

IT is still approached as something supportive in many processes. Systems have to be linked, data has to be transferred and eventually everything has to "land in one environment". But in reality, IT reflects how an organization works.

• How processes are set up.
• How decisions are made.
• How data is used and shared.

When two organizations come together, those differences also come together in their IT landscape. And with that, IT becomes not only a technical challenge, but an organizational one.

This explains why integrations are often more difficult than expected. It is not just about systems that need to be merged, but about ways of working that need to fit together.

Where the pace is lost

In many mergers and acquisitions, the biggest challenge is not in what needs to be done, but in how quickly it is possible to do so in a controlled manner. In the first months after closing, there is often momentum. Decisions are made quickly, the urgency is high and the ambition is clear. But as integration progresses, the complexity increases.

• Processes do not appear to fit one-to-one.
• Data is not directly comparable.
• Teams work in different ways.

If there is no clear structure and direction, there will be delays. Not because of one big problem, but because of an accumulation of smaller dependencies and choices that have to be made over and over again.

Research shows that it is precisely this loss of pace that is one of the main reasons why the intended value from mergers and acquisitions is not fully realized.

The shift: from integration to management

What is striking about organizations that do make mergers and acquisitions predictable is that they approach integration differently. Not as a sum of projects, but as an issue of direction and coherence.

That starts with making explicit choices. Which processes will be leading? Which method will become the standard? Where is there room for variation and where is it not? By making those choices early, clarity is created in the rest of the process.

In addition, the focus shifts from "bringing everything together as quickly as possible" to "phased and controlled integration". Continuity is central to this. The organization must continue to function, while at the same time working towards a new, joint way of working.

IT plays a key role in this, because it is the place where those choices are made concretely. Not as an end in itself, but as a means to bring structure.

An opportunity that often only becomes visible later

What only gradually becomes clear in many processes is that a merger or acquisition not only requires integration, but also offers room for innovation. Existing working methods are being called into question. Differences become visible. And there is a moment when choices are not only possible, but also necessary.

Organizations that use that moment do more than merge. They use the integration to simplify, to steer more sharply and to build a foundation that supports future growth. That requires conscious choice. Not taking everything with you because it is already there, but determining what fits the direction in which the organization wants to develop.

Value is created in the execution

The value of a merger or acquisition is not determined by the deal itself, but by what happens next. In the way organizations work together, make decisions and organize their operations.

Everything comes together in this: people, processes and technology. IT is not a goal in this, but it is a determining factor. Because it makes visible how an organization works and because it is the place where that way of working is redesigned.

The question is therefore not whether IT plays a role, but how consciously that role is fulfilled. Because in the end, the difference is not in the plans that are made, but in the extent to which those plans will actually work.