The first 90 days after an acquisition: two process landscapes, one view

After closing, integration begins, and with it an awkward fact: there are now two ways to run almost every workflow. Both work, both have their reasons, and neither is visible to the other side. The first 90 days decide whether the integration is decided on that basis or on whatever happens to be at hand.

Why integration fails for lack of a clear view is covered in After the acquisition: laying two worlds side by side. This guide is the practical part: three phases, each with a clear result.

Phase 1 · Days 1–30: take stock

Result: an overview of which workflows exist on both sides and where they are described.

The first temptation is to start with the processes that hurt most. It is better to set the frame first:

1. Scope by integration risk. Not every workflow at once. First the ones where a mistake shows up outside immediately: quote, order, invoice, complaint. Then the regulated ones, where evidence may be due. Then the handovers that now run between the two companies.
2. Collect both sides of the description. For every workflow there is what defines how work should be done: SOPs, manuals, contracts, certification documents. And there is how work is actually done: traces in mail, tickets, CRM, ERP and file shares. Both belong in the inventory, on both sides.
3. List the tools of both companies. Which modelling tool, which wiki, which file share, which spreadsheets that are really processes. The list is almost always longer than expected, and it tells you where the knowledge is, not just where it should be.

What doesn’t happen in this phase: judging. Whoever names “the better side” in the first weeks will only get to see half of the other side afterwards.

Phase 2 · Days 31–60: make the differences visible

Result: for every workflow in scope, a side-by-side view with the differences named.

Now both worlds are laid side by side. The differences that come up are not all alike, and it pays to keep them apart:

• Same workflow, different rule. Both sides handle complaints, but one answers within five days and the other within fourteen. Similar on paper, a noticeable difference for the customer.
• Same purpose, different systems. The same approval runs in the ERP on one side and by email with a spreadsheet attached on the other. The workflow is comparable, the evidence is not.
• Only on one side. A check that simply doesn’t exist over there. Either a gap on one side or a leftover on the other.
• Target and reality apart, within one side. The manual describes a workflow that hasn’t run that way for years. This gap existed before the acquisition. It only becomes visible now because someone is looking.

The differences are named, not moderated away. A workshop in which both sides agree that “basically we do it the same way” saves an hour and costs an integration later.

Phase 3 · Days 61–90: one view to decide on

Result: a decision for each workflow, on a shared basis.

With the side-by-side view, harmonisation becomes a decision rather than a compromise. For each workflow there are essentially four options:

Decision	When it fits
Adopt	One side demonstrably runs the workflow better, and the difference isn’t tied to a site
Align	Both sides have good parts, and a shared version is realistic
Keep parallel on purpose	The difference has a reason, such as a licence, a customer contract or a national rule, with a date for the next review
Start over	Neither version carries the combined company

The people responsible on both sides should decide together, based on what the side-by-side view shows. The view that emerges carries more than the integration: it is the basis for the next system choice, for the first joint audit and for onboarding the people who will now work across both companies.

Rule of thumb: See both worlds first, then choose one. Whoever harmonises in the first 90 days is deciding about workflows they don’t know yet.

What goes wrong in the first 90 days

• Migrating too early. The new shared tool is chosen before it is clear which workflows belong in it. The difference between the companies then gets transferred into a system instead of being resolved.
• Interviews only. Conversations are indispensable, but they tell you how things are meant to be. How things run is in the systems. And someone worried about their role in the new company tends to describe their workflow cautiously.
• The knowledge leaves before it is captured. After acquisitions, it is often exactly the people who know why something runs the way it does who leave. What exists only in their heads is tribal knowledge and can no longer be gathered once they are gone.

Where ProcessMagnet comes in

Magnet reads both sides of a description: the documents that define how work should be done, and the systems in which work is actually done. After an acquisition, that means the same for both companies, laid side by side. Two process landscapes become one comparable view on which the decisions from phase 3 are made, without anyone first having to type up two worlds by hand.

How to deal with grown tool landscapes along the way is covered in From tool sprawl to one view. If an acquisition is on your desk right now, bring it to the demo as your trigger, and we will look together at where you would start.