Viewing TSAs as simple contracts encourages extensions and complacency. Framing them as projects with defined start dates, end dates, and scopes creates the necessary urgency for the acquiring company to build internal capabilities and exit the agreement on time, preventing costly integration debt.

Related Insights

Teams often treat TSA budgets as 'free money' for integration, leading to casual extension requests. To drive urgency, integration leads must show how TSA costs directly impact a functional team's P&L. This shifts perception from a central budget item to a direct departmental expense, accelerating the exit process.

To maintain momentum, Cisco makes critical integration decisions—like site strategy or system consolidation—during diligence, not after close. These decisions are embedded into the final deal commitment materials, preventing post-close paralysis and emotional debates, allowing teams to execute immediately.

To avoid a broken handoff, embed key business and integration experts into the core deal team from the start. These members view diligence through an integration lens, validating synergy assumptions and timelines in real-time. This prevents post-signing surprises and ensures the deal model is operationally achievable, creating a seamless transition from deal-making to execution.

Many M&A teams focus solely on closing the deal, a critical execution task. The best acquirers succeed by designing a parallel process where integration planning and value creation strategies are developed simultaneously with due diligence, ensuring post-close success.

Don't surprise an acquired company with an integration plan on day one. Snowflake turns diligence into a collaborative process post-term sheet. They work with the target's leadership to jointly build the integration thesis, define milestones, and agree on charters, ensuring buy-in and alignment before the deal is even signed.

By the time a strategic acquirer enters due diligence, the desire to do the deal is already high. The process's primary purpose is not to hunt for deal-breakers but to confirm key assumptions and, more importantly, to gather the necessary data to build a robust and successful integration plan.

To combat decision paralysis during integration, implement a regimented playbook with RASI charts (Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, Informed). Critically, decisions are time-bound with clear milestones. If a decision isn't made within the specified timeframe, it is automatically escalated, forcing resolution and maintaining momentum.

A separate Integration Management Office (IMO) creates a risky handoff. A better model for agile teams is for the Corp Dev professional who sourced and led the deal to pivot and own the integration plan post-close. This ensures the original deal thesis is carried through execution without loss of context.

A process where the deal team hands off a signed transaction to a separate integration team is flawed. State Street integrates business and integration experts into the deal team from the start. This ensures diligence is informed by integration realities, timelines are realistic, and synergy assumptions in the deal model are achievable.

A detailed, rigid integration plan is fragile. A better approach is to create an "integration thesis" that sets clear "goalposts" and timelines for making key decisions. This allows for flexibility and data-informed choices (e.g., using A/B tests post-close) rather than locking into pre-deal assumptions.