����������� ������� �� �������� ������ ��� ���������� �������
��������� �� ������� ����������� ��� ��� ������ �� ������ �� �������
D��� H����������
11066628
������ ����������� �������
����������� �������
������� �� �������
���������� �� ���������
2020�07�17
1stexaminer 2ndexaminer Title, Name dhr. ir. Otte-Pieter Banga drs. Toon Abcouwer A�liation UvA, FNWI UvA, FNWIWorldwide mergers and acquisitions (M&As) fail in an aver-age of 50 percent of the cases. Information system integration (ISI), a speci�c part of M&As, is of major importance to suc-cessfully carry out the M&A process. Remarkably, ISI is often neglected in M&A research. Meanwhile, M&As struggle with ISI, resulting in information systems (ISs) that can not deliver what was expected by stakeholders.
Recent literature has submitted a review over the past 30 years of ISI literature. This review indicated often studied constructs and the signi�cance of their e�ect on the ISI de-cision, process and outcome. The ISI process appears to be underexposed, which was in this research expected to be a cause of the high percentage of failing M&As.
This research therefore aimed at shifting the focus to the ISI process by creating a framework which represents best practice of this process and contains constructs a�ecting it. Additionally, the e�ect of three of the review’s constructs was de�ned as arguable and its arguability was investigated. The �nal framework has been aligned with practice by interviewing ISI practitioners. This makes it usable for M&As to increase understanding of the ISI process, which improves M&A success.
Keywords
Information system integration, mergers and acquisitions, process focus, opening the black box, framework, overcom-ing the theory-practice gap.
1 Introduction
Worldwide mergers and acquisitions (M&As) fail in an aver-age of 50 percent of the cases [1, 8]. M&As fail, if no value is created for their stakeholders [12]. M&A failure has signi�-cant implications, as in 2010 the global value of M&A deals reached 2,65 trillion United States dollars (USDs) [23], which was 3,7 trillion USDs in 2016 [16].
Currently, the COVID-19 virus holds the world in its grip. Companies are trying to keep their heads above water, which has dried up the M&A market. However, there is hypothe-sized that this crisis in the long term causes forced sales and therefore a revival of the M&A market [11]. The likelihood of this hypothesis is strengthened by the unprecedented in-crease in M&As during the global economic crisis in 2008 [20].
M&As are a strategy or part of a strategy to accomplish growth or diversi�cation. Examples of motives for M&As are: increasing market share, reducing or excluding competition and acquiring new technology [19].
Information system integration (ISI) is a speci�c part of M&As, which plays a major factor in whether or not M&As
force behind the creation of synergies and savings through M&As. Remarkably, ISI is often neglected in M&A research, while M&As struggle with di�culties that occur on IS level [9].
From personal experience the complexity that can occur after the ISI, is acknowledged. An acquaintance works for a relatively small children and youth psychiatric institution that merged recently with a bigger psychiatric institution for adults. The personnel within this smaller institution was forced to work with the system of the bigger institution. This system was designed to provide care to adult patients and was therefore less applicable in the context of the smaller institution, namely providing care to children.
It is likely that the personnel within this smaller institu-tion, after some time adapts to work with this new system. However, in the meantime there is a chance that work can not be done as e�ectively as before, which might has severe consequences within such a vital sector, it can literally cost human lives.
According to Henningsson, Yetton, and Wynne [6], theo-retical diversity and explorative research approaches have resulted in ISI being a fragmented research domain, which has evolved in a non-cumulative manner. Henningsson et al. [6] therefore completed an extensive review and identi-�ed common constructs among ISI literature, whose e�ect is either signi�cant or non signi�cant on the ISI decision, the outcome or the process. From this can be deduced that in the ISI domain, the focus has been on constructs a�ecting these components.
Of these three components, the ISI process seems to be the "black box", as only the e�ect of two constructs was found to be signi�cantly a�ecting the ISI process. This can be seen in the model in Appendix Figure 3, which is throughout this report called Henningsson’s model.
This research assumes that properly grasping the ISI pro-cess is of major importance for sucpro-cessful ISI. Therefore, the focus must not mainly be on understanding the e�ect of con-structs on the ISI decision and outcome. Instead, the focus must be on understanding the e�ect of constructs on the entire process.
The correctness of this assumption is strengthened by the model of Schilstra, Takács, and Abcouwer [17], which can be seen in Appendix Figure 4. This model was created to function as a tool to facilitate high performing cooperative learning in higher education. The underlying reason for cre-ating this framework was the claim that evaluation must take place in all phases of the educational process, not just by evaluating the results of the process with the in advance
stated objectives as a measure [17]. Throughout the report this model is called Schilstra’s model.
As M&As fail in an average of 50 percent of the cases, the assumption is made that this failure is caused by a missing perception of the e�ect of the constructs on the ISI process. This research therefore aims to shift the ISI literature’s focus to the ISI process by making use of Schilstra’s model to group the constructs to phases of the ISI process.
The desired result is an insightful framework of the signif-icance of the constructs in the ISI process. The framework must increase understanding of the ISI process, to improve M&A success.
Apart from using and combining literature to understand the ISI process, interviews were conducted with ISI prac-titioners. The interviews were conducted, to test whether the framework held up in practice or whether it needed to be adjusted. Additionally, the e�ect of three of the review’s constructs was de�ned as arguable and its arguability was investigated in practice.
Finally, there was explained how the �nal framework can be used as a tool to shift M&As’ focus to the ISI process. During this research the following main research question was used:
How can the ISI process be modelled to provide M&As with a tool to get a better understanding of the ISI process?
Thereby some sub-questions were used, to support answer-ing the main research question:
• What is ISI?
• Why does ISI often fail?
• What has the approach been to understand ISI? • How can the focus be shifted to an ISI process focus? • How can the created framework be used in practice?
2 Conceptual context
2.1 ISI literature review
2.1.1 ISI definition. This section explains the de�nition of ISI in the M&A context by treating di�erent concepts that de�ne ISI, the driver behind ISIs, organizational layers that are a�ected by ISI and how ISI can be carried out properly on di�erent organizational layers.
ISI can be explained by the three concepts process, con-tent and context. The process being the "how", so merging distinct ISs into one system. The content being the "what", so the emerged system. The context being the "where", so the broader organizational, cultural and geographical landscape in which the ISI is situated [1].
In this research, ISI is treated in the M&A context, whereas ISI does also take place inter-organizational. An organization could, for example, exist of multiple organizational units, all
using their own IS and there can be decided that one IS must be created.
Although, the speci�city of the M&A context must be taken into account, this inter-organizational ISI is expected to be similar to ISI in the M&A context, as in the M&A process the goal is also to create one organization and possibly also one IS.
Organizational units are often vertically fragmented, us-ing their own IS, and at the same time tryus-ing to facilitate data distribution among the units. This fragmentation results in di�culties with data exchange [5]. The organizational units can, for example, consist of the following layers: business-, application- and technology-architecture. These layers have to do with the actual users of an application, alignment be-tween business and IT and IT aiming to achieve business goals, respectively [5].
As these units are vertically fragmented, ISI must use a horizontal integration approach on all three layers. The three approaches for the layers are inter-organizational pro-cesses, enterprise application integration and middleware integration, respectively [5]. These three approaches include integrating ISs from di�erent units to improve the business process, integrating enterprise resource planning (ERP) sys-tems to aid business processes and preserve investments in legacy systems (semantical level), and building an infrastruc-ture for the composed ISs (syntactical level), respectively [5].
2.1.2 Failure. This section emphasizes risks during the ISI that can possibly lead to ISI failure. Moreover, it is made clear that deciding on the "right" ISI approach is challenging. In section 2.1.1, three concepts were explained which de�ne ISI. For these concepts, speci�c key risks are described that can lead to ISI failure.
Risks in the process are: process drift and resource short-fall. These imply unwanted deviations from the ISI plan, like process delays and cost increases, and obstruction of the ISI process through a lack of resources like money, time or expertise, respectively [1].
Risks linked to the content are: narrow focus and manage-rial bias. These imply insu�cient understanding of the ISI context; ignoring or overlooking relevant legal, business or technological issues, and the creation of a biased ISI solution; focusing too much on business technology or one speci�c merging party, respectively [1].
Risks linked to the context are: stakeholder con�ict and con�guration incongruence. These imply lacking or inade-quate support for IS integration or resistance against it, and incompatibility of policies and processes of merging parties, respectively [1].
The three problem dimensions distribution, heterogeneity and autonomy are linked to total system integration [5]. Fix-ing these three issues completely is often not possible and not reasonable. Distribution is simply necessary if organiza-tions merge systems, heterogeneity enables organizational units to achieve speci�c business goals and autonomy creates a �exible architecture, which is adaptable to the changing environment [5].
In contrast to total integration, there are problems of keep-ing interconnected systems. Due to the interconnection be-tween systems, when altering one system the other system must be altered too, resulting in high maintenance costs [2, 7]. Thereby managerial problems occur as a result of keeping distinct systems, namely this infrastructure can not support management e�ectively, not provide data accuracy leading to di�culties in decision making and not facilitate collaboration and coordination [7].
There are four organizational integration approaches de-�ned, namely absorption, symbiosis, preservation and hold-ing. These include absorption of the acquired company into the acquirer’s culture, evolution through complementing, learning from each other with minimal integration and value creation without any integration taking place, respectively. Absorption and symbiosis are most critical regarding facili-tation of the ISI process [18].
Regarding the aforementioned problem dimensions, there can be stated that absorption leads to most distribution, and least heterogeneity and autonomy, whereas holding leads to least distribution, and most heterogeneity and autonomy.
The mentioned factors are seen as risks and challenges in the ISI process that must be understood and prevented, to prevent ISI failure. The in section 1 stated assumption is therefore held on to and is the following:
A��������� 1 (A1). ISI failure can be the result of a missing perception of the ISI process.
2.2 Focus on the ISI process
2.2.1 Schilstra’s model. With the aim to account for the ISI process, the constructs from Henningsson’s model1, are realigned by using Schilstra’s model. Schilstra’s model con-sists of the three phases preparation, facilitation, evaluation, and the climate in which these are situated. The di�erent phases of the model are described in this section. Hereby, a translation is made to the ISI process with the aim to keep the model as intact as possible.
Schilstra’s model is expected to be able to serve as a ba-sis for modelling the ISI process, resulting in the following assumption:
A��������� 2 (A2). Schilstra’s model can serve as a basis for modelling the ISI process.
1Described in section 1 and further explained in Appendix section A.1
Preparation. The preparation phase is a pre-phase of the ISI process. Stakeholders need to set goals, identify a framework around the ISI process, create a methodology and possibly identify an incentive system which enables reaching the de�ned goals.
Suggestions given by Schilstra et al. [17] that are relevant for preparing the ISI process are: (1) Design and explain clear working structures for ISI personnel and describe the most important processes properly; resulting in trust and cooper-ation and (2) Ask continuously for feedback, plan individual and cooperative tasks and their evaluations carefully and fa-cilitate and support ISI personnel to plan carefully; resulting in a transparent and agreed methodology.
Facilitation. Facilitation is actually delivering the ISI which is facilitated by the ISI personnel and the environment. Sug-gestions given by Schilstra et al. [17] that are relevant for facilitating the ISI process are: (1) The ISI process and proper information exchange between stakeholders must be moni-tored, and communicating, collecting and processing of di-rect feedback must be facilitated; resulting in cooperation be-tween participants towards the agreed goals, and (2) Enough time must be available to facilitate strong group dynamics; resulting in a transparent and agreed methodology. Evaluation. During the ISI process, continuous evaluation by the stakeholders must take place. Herewith, feedback must be collected and changes must be made in the process to reach the in the preparation phase de�ned goals. Addi-tionally, evaluation at the end of the ISI process must take place.
Suggestions given by Schilstra et al. [17] that are relevant for evaluating the ISI process are: (1) Assess performance individually and collaboratively, assessment must be done based on transparent and accepted criteria and (2) Re�ection must be present during the whole ISI process. Both resulting in a transparent and agreed methodology.
Climate. During all phases, stakeholders in the ISI process have speci�c roles to create a climate, optimal for ISI. Which means that there must be mutual respect and common agree-ments, acceptance of each other, stimulation of active en-gagement and mutual trust.
2.2.2 Realigning Henningsson’s constructs. According to the descriptions of the di�erent phases of Schilstra’s model, the constructs from Henningsson’s model were classi�ed in one or multiple groups. This can be seen in the table in Appendix section C.
Moreover, the importance of the constructs for creating the optimal climate for the ISI process is presented. The importance is presented by the color blue; darker blue repre-sents greater importance and is taken on a scale from one to �ve. The colours for 4/5 and 5/5 are presented in the table.
2.2.3 Arguable constructs. The signi�cance of the e�ect of the constructs on the ISI decision, process or outcome was evaluated2. In the table in Appendix section C this is repre-sented by the column "Acceptability", in which red represents big doubt, orange some doubt and green no doubt. From the orange and red constructs, three constructs of the author’s interest were chosen for further investigation. Doubt in the signi�cance of the e�ect of the chosen constructs is discussed in this section.
Political considerations. In Henningsson’s model this con-struct’s in�uence on the ISI outcome is found to be non-signi�cant in at least 80 percent of the studies.
Looking at Henningsson’s model, the construct Power and politics is presented as a categorical variable that has a signi�cant e�ect on the ISI decision in at least 80 percent of the studies. As the ISI decision results in the ISI method and Integration alignment, which on their part in�uence the ISI outcome, Power and politics indirectly in�uence the ISI outcome signi�cantly. This is one reason for identifying the low signi�cance of the e�ect of the construct Political considerations on the ISI outcome arguable.
Moreover, the de�ned arguability is backed by budget and resource allocation being processes that are controlled by political processes [15]. These processes are decisional processes that a�ect the ISI method and integration align-ment strategy that can be utilized. Budget and resources are facilitating the ISI process.
Based on political considerations a�ecting the ISI method, the integration alignment strategy and facilitation of the ISI process, which have a strong in�uence on the ISI outcome, the following assumption is formulated:
A��������� 3 (A3). The e�ect of political considerations a�ects the ISI outcome signi�cantly.
Planning constructs. In Henningsson’s model, four constructs related to planning can be found: (1) IS-business collabora-tion in planning, (2) Discovery (vs consistency), (3) Organi-zational M&A planning and (4) Quality of ISI planning. The e�ect of the �rst and third construct on the ISI outcome is positively signi�cant in 60-80 percent of the studies, whereas the e�ect of the other two is positively signi�cant in at least 80 percent of the cases.
The second construct, Discovery, is the opposite of plan-ning, see Appendix Table 1. The ISI process consists of steps for reaching the ISI outcome that can be planned, but also of emergent unforeseen steps which require �exibility to be utilizable [6].
2The constructs up to and including the construct Use of external resources a�ect the ISI decision, Time pressure a�ects both, ISI method and Integration alignment the ISI process and the rest the ISI outcome. This can be seen in Appendix Figure 3.
The planning approach Discovery is expected to be most useful for ISI in the M&A context, as of the complexity and resulting uncertainty that has come to light in the previous sections. This results in the following assumption:
A��������� 4 (A4). A rather �exible planning is crucial for ISI in the M&A context.
Time pressure. In Henningsson’s model time pressure a�ects the ISI decision and the ISI outcome, negatively signi�cant in 80 percent and 60-80 percent of the cases, respectively.
In this research there is not denied that time pressure can have a negative e�ect on the ISI decision and outcome, but rather that it does not necessarily take place. In fact, time pressure is stated to have a positive e�ect on performance, under the condition that time pressure is not too severe.
This thought has originated from own experience and is backed by Parkinson’s law [14]. The following interpretation is made of Parkinson’s law: the more time you have for a task, the less e�cient you are with that time. The less time you have for a task, the more e�cient you are with that time. If time pressure is too severe though, the time might be utilized optimally, but there is done what can be done, which is likely to decrease the quality of the result.
This emphasizes why the negative e�ect of this construct is de�ned as arguable and leads to the following assumption: A��������� 5 (A5). Time pressure has a positive e�ect on the ISI decision and outcome, under the condition that time pressure is not too severe.
3 Method
The followed procedures for conducting the interviews and analysing the data obtained from the interviews, are de-scribed in this section.
3.1 Interviews
3.1.1 Se�ing the scene. An enterprise architecture with ex-perience in ISI in the M&A context was interviewed to "set the scene". Interview questions were formulated based on what was known about ISI in the M&A context in an early stage. The questions were therefore high level and focused on the interviewee’s ISI solution. These questions can be found in Appendix section D.2.2.
3.1.2 Practitioners interview questions.The interviews started with an introduction about the research topic, and possible questions from the interviewees were answered. This intro-duction can be found in Appendix section D.2.1.
Then, the interviewees were asked introducing questions to de�ne their experience regarding the research topic. This de�nition was used to assign a role to them and to guaran-tee that people from a variety of M&A contexts were inter-viewed. These have the aim to question interviewees based on their competencies and to make sure all organizational
roles were covered, and to maximize generalizablility of the results, respectively. An explanation of the di�erent roles and linking competencies can be found in Appendix section D.2.6. Which questions were asked to people in speci�c roles, is presented in Appendix Table 3 and the questions can be found in Appendix section D.2.3.
After these introducing questions the interviewees were questioned regarding their view on the ISI process, with the aim to re�ect on the Assumptions 1 and 2, and contribute to the �nal framework. These questions can be found in Appendix section D.2.4.
Lastly, the interviewees were asked four questions, which cover the same topics for each arguable construct. The ques-tions cover the following topics: (1) E�ect of the construct on the ISI, (2) Examples of the construct a�ecting the ISI, (3) Phase of the ISI process that is mainly a�ected by the construct and (4) The construct’s e�ect on the ISI process’ climate. These questions aim to re�ect on Assumptions 3 to 5, and contribute to the �nal framework. These questions can be found in Appendix section D.2.5.
3.1.3 Interview se�ing.The interviews were conducted semi-structured. This enables freedom to explore, which is suitable for topics that have not been studied frequently yet, as is the case for ISI in the M&A context [22].
The �rst two interviews were used to test whether or not the questions provided the wanted responses and the questions were changed if needed. Were the questions un-derstood? Did the answers ful�ll the aim to re�ect on the assumptions? The total amount of conducted interviews was six. This was decided based on the saturation approach [4]. Interviews were conducted via Skype, lasted averagely one hour and �fteen minutes and were recorded after permission was granted from the interviewees.
Afterwards, the interviews were transcribed in a wordly way and provided in Appendix D.8. Transcribing in a wordly way results in some loss of meaning, compared to literally transcribing. Yet, this approach was chosen, because of the scope of this research.
3.2 Data analysis
3.2.1 ATLAS.ti 8.0.The transcribed interviews were anal-ysed using the software ATLAS.ti 8.0, which can be used to code pieces of text according to a created code scheme. The code scheme was based on the �rst realignment and the arguable constructs that emerged from that realignment. Additional codes were added based on �ndings from the in-terviews that suggested adjustment in the realignment. This code scheme can be found in Appendix Figure 5.
3.2.2 Framework as a tool.M&As must use the framework properly; as a tool to shift the focus to the ISI process to create better understanding of the ISI process. Therefore an
explanation is provided on how to use the framework to reach this goal.
4 Results
This section consists of an objective representation of what has emerged from the interviews. The topics important for re�ection on the �ve assumptions and creation of the ISI process framework are described. General information about the interviewees, that proves role coverage and a variety of M&A contexts can be found in the two tables in Appendix section D.4.
4.1 Perception of the ISI process
4.1.1 Missing ISI process awareness. ISI is not treated as a speci�c process and designed accordingly. Quotes that emphasize this, are listed in Appendix section D.5.1. These quotes state that ISI was forgotten to account for during the merger, the business case was already decided on before ISI came into play, a missing awareness of the importance of ISI and a missing thought out ISI process.
Reasons for this missing awareness are: information and communication technology (ICT) has a facilitating role and people that lead the M&A process are often purely �nancial oriented. As a result, ICT is unappreciated; ICT costs are too high and ICT is seen as a “black box”. This is emphasized by the quotes listed in Appendix section D.5.2.
This missing awareness is thereby re�ected in the domi-nant way of evaluating M&A results, which is result evalua-tion. This type of evaluation is mainly driven by money and time, which is too short-sighted, as can be seen in the �rst three quotes listed in Appendix section D.5.3.
4.1.2 Importance of properly designing the ISI process. Al-though, the ISI process was seldom acknowledged as a spe-ci�c process and designed accordingly, the importance of this was emphasized. Namely, lacking this, often leads to compro-mises that negatively a�ect the ISI results, as is emphasized by the quotes listed in Appendix section D.5.4.
Interviewees were therefore questioned regarding their view on the best practice ISI process. The summarized result of their view can be seen in section 4.5, which is translated into the �nal framework in section 5.2.
4.1.3 Interplay between forces. There is an interplay be-tween the forces scope, budget and time during ISI. Politics is the driver behind these forces. Other used designations for scope, budget and politics were quality, money and interests, respectively. These forces a�ect the ISI climate.
This interplay means that when one force shoots up, the others move along, so when there is an interest to expand the scope, more time is needed, the budget must increase or a combination of these approaches. These statements are emphasized in the quotes in Appendix section D.6.4.
4.2 Political considerations
Quotes that emphasize the statements made in paragraphs of this section can be found in Appendix section D.6.1. ISI phase it a�ects the most. When carrying out ISI accord-ing to a best practice scenario; "gettaccord-ing everyone on the same page", political considerations a�ect the preparation phase the most, as can be concluded from the quotes in Ap-pendix section D.6.1. In this phase, decisions must be made that are the best for the originating organization. Political considerations, like personal interests, can lead to choosing compromised sub-optimal decisions.
The facilitation phase can also be a�ected by political con-siderations, as there are also interests at this point. However, when the preparation phase is carried out according to the best practice scenario, this construct does not a�ect this phase that much.
ISI awareness to mediate their negative e�ects. The negative e�ects of political considerations on ISI results, is the result of missing ISI awareness. Getting everyone on the same page, as mentioned above, is really important to cultivate this ISI awareness. The interplay between forces and the resulting e�ect on ISI, described in section 4.1.3, must be understood by everyone in the organization.
Moreover, expertise must be acknowledged by giving ex-perts mandate in expert processes like ISI. This means that experts must not be forced to carry out ISI, while they de-clared that the budget was too low or not enough time was given.
Climate. The interviewees unanimously stated that political considerations negatively a�ect the climate in which ISI is sit-uated. This is emphasized by the following statements: coex-isting cultures originate, unfeasible projects getting rammed in and talents with good proposals do not feel heard and walk away.
4.3 Planning constructs
Quotes that emphasize the statements made in paragraphs of this section can be found in Appendix section D.6.2. 4.3.1 Appropriate planning approach.The interviewees stated that the ISI planning can never be totally �xed. A good prepa-ration phase can result in a close to �xed planning though. One interviewee called it "a planning poured into wet con-crete", meaning that the planning is �xed, but not totally. This is forced by the uncertain environment.
As with political considerations, ISI awareness must be present to guarantee that the interests of ISI are represented. In that way ISI feasibility is secured. Additionally, the ISI must be treated as an "EPIC"; the project must be split up into sub-projects, each with its own project owner to keep it manageable.
Moreover, one interviewee mentioned that the "�rst things �rst" mentality must be used when creating an ISI planning. For example, the ISs that regulate �nancial processes must have priority. Systems that are business process supportive and generic ISs used to cooperate, have less priority.
The interviewees thereby mentioned various project man-agement methods, but not one was stated to be the best in the ISI context. What was said about these methods can be found in Appendix section D.6.2.
4.3.2 ISI phase it a�ects the most. The ISI phase that is mainly a�ected by planning factors was, unanimously, the preparation phase and more speci�cally the end of the prepa-ration phase. If till then, the phase is carried out properly, maximum insight has been obtained about everything that is important regarding the ISI process. With this information, the aforementioned planning poured into wet concrete can be formulated and carried out during facilitation.
4.3.3 Climate. The interviewees were not as clear about the e�ect of planning factors on the ISI climate as with polit-ical considerations. Planning factors were stated to result in connectedness, having a crystal clear goal together, which triggers execution. However, before this can be exploited, the negative e�ects of political considerations on the climate must be mediated.
4.4 Time pressure
Quotes that emphasize the statements made in paragraphs of this section can be found in Appendix section D.6.3. 4.4.1 ISI phase it a�ects the most. The two phases prepara-tion and facilitaprepara-tion, were stated to be the phases that are mainly a�ected by time pressure. The �rst answer of most interviewees was the facilitation phase, because when ISI personnel gets closer to actually delivering the ISI, time pres-sure is experienced more severe. Also, time prespres-sure forces new tooling and technologies to be beat in, instead of being massaged in gently.
Yet, the interviewees realized that the facilitation phase is dependent on the preparation phase. Meaning that when time pressure negatively a�ects the preparation phase, it is likely that the facilitation phase can not be carried out as was planned.
4.4.2 Scope creep.The interviewees thereby stated that time pressure can be the result of a weak determination of scope. This results in things being added to the organizations’ scope, while losing sight of available time. This is called "scope creep" and must be prevented in the preparation phase by a strong determination of scope instead.
4.4.3 Climate. Time pressure is stated to in�uence the de-cisions that can be made. It is a fact that in�uences and is in�uenced by other forces like scope, budget and political
considerations. There is stated that there must be dealt with, but if too severe, it has a signi�cant negative impact on the ISI climate.
4.5 Modelling the ISI process
Although, ISI is not treated as a speci�c process and designed accordingly, the phases of Schilstra’s model were acknowl-edged as important phases for a best practice ISI process. The facilitation and evaluation phase were acknowledged to a lesser extent, but their importance was emphasized. The way the best practice ISI process is perceived by the intervie-wees can be seen in Appendix section D.7 and is summarized below.
4.5.1 Preparation phase.Mentioned objectives of this phase were aligned with the objectives that Schilstra et al. [17] describes. The goal is to create a framework around the ISI process, which can function as a guide to successfully carry out the process. To be successful, the goals and processes must be understood by all stakeholders before the facilitation phase is started.
Problematically, this is often not accomplished, for exam-ple, as a result of political considerations or the necessity to make the business operational again. Again, this is related to ICT’s facilitating role; ICT is a facilitator and must deliver. ISI personnel often lacks mandate and is therefore restricted by decisions from top level.
Therefore, it is important that ISI personnel is present at an early stage in the M&A process. The organization’s business case must be approved from an ISI perspective, and mandate must be claimed.
Practices that are especially relevant in the M&A con-text to create a usable framework around the ISI process are sorted in chronological order: (1) De�ne the strategic rational, (2) Formulate the business case; must be aligned with people, culture and tools, not only �gure driven, (3) Formulate scenarios for the business case; important is to get approval from an architect; someone who has a “heli-copter view” on the organization, so the architect can assess the scenarios on organizational-wide feasibility, (4) De�ne the role of ISI in the scenarios, (5) Claim mandate; prevent, being restricted in carrying out the ISI process according to best practice, (6) Decide on the best scenario and (7) Agree upon the ISI process planning; gather as much information as possible to create an agreed upon ISI process planning for the chosen scenario.
For practices 1 and 2, the tools acquisition pipeline, due diligence and capability/maturity models were mentioned. For practices 3 to 6 the "Negenvlaksmodel van Maes", the in section 4.2 mentioned ISI process awareness and the in sec-tion 4.4 mensec-tioned scope creep prevensec-tion, were mensec-tioned as usable tools. Practice 6, speci�cally needs a methodology
to choose best practice. Finally, for practice 7, three planning approaches were mentioned: the �rst things �rst approach, the EPIC approach and a planning in wet concrete. These were mentioned in section 4.3.1.
4.5.2 Facilitation phase.Mentioned objectives of this phase were aligned with objectives that Schilstra et al. [17] de-scribes. The facilitation phase is rather pragmatic. Once the preparation phase is carried out properly, the ISI can be carried out pragmatically according to the planning. The creation of strong group dynamics mentioned by Schilstra et al. [17] must therefore already been accomplished in the preparation phase instead.
Practices to pragmatically carry out the ISI are sorted in chronological order: (1) Work on in the planning de�ned sub-projects, (2) Deliver leastwise the sub-project’s minimal result and (3) Deliver the ISI.
Tools usable for this phase are the Zenit platform; sug-gested by the setting the scene interviewee, as can be seen in Appendix section D.3, ISI awareness; created in the prepa-ration phase and must be maintained during the whole ISI process, and mandate; which prevents being restricted in carrying out the ISI process in a best practice way.
4.5.3 Evaluation phase.The least is known about this phase in the ISI process. However, it is something that is taking place continuously as was also stated by Schilstra et al. [17]. This is emphasized by the �rst two quotes listed in Appendix section D.5.5.
The last two quotes, describe that an end evaluation was performed. This end evaluation was described as a step that was perceived as a “should thingy” by the organiza-tion, whereby an opportunity to learn from the evaluation was not seized, and something that is really recommended to carry out, respectively. Moreover, aftercare and quality preservation were evaluation steps that reoccurred during the interviews.
Despite the scarce information provided about this phase, the following chronological steps were de�ned: (1) End evalu-ation, (2) Learning, (3) After care and (4) Quality preservation. No tools were suggested.
5 Discussion
5.1 Analysis
5.1.1 Assumptions.In this section, there is re�ected upon the �ve assumptions by analysing the results from section 4. This is a re�ection of what has been found in this research. Due to context dependency of the ISI process, it is likely that the �ndings can not one on one be adopted to any ISI in the M&A context. Instead, the �ndings must be translated to the speci�c ISI context.
experience, not treated as a speci�c process (section 4.1.1), and the importance of properly designing the ISI process was emphasized by stating that lacking this, often leads to compromises that negatively a�ect the ISI results (section 4.1.2). This con�rms that ISI failure can be the result of a missing perception of the ISI process.
Assumption 2. The phases of Schilstra’s model were ac-knowledged by the interviewees. The facilitation and evalu-ation phase were acknowledged to a lesser extent, but their importance was emphasized (section 4.5). This con�rmed that Schilstra’s model could serve as a useful basis which could be extended based on the interviews.
Assumption 3. The interviewees were unanimous on the negatively signi�cant e�ect of political considerations on the ISI outcome. The e�ect of political considerations on the ISI outcome presented in Henningsson’s model must therefore be seriously questioned. However, there must be noted, that creating ISI awareness in the preparation phase of the ISI process can mediate this negative e�ect (section 4.2).
Furthermore, in the realignment discussed in section 2.2.2, political considerations were mapped to the facilitation phase and their e�ect on the ISI climate was stated to be big, 4/5. The interviewees con�rm this big e�ect on the climate, but creating ISI awareness can mediate the negative e�ects (sec-tion 4.2). Therefore, the e�ect is not put at 5/5, but kept at 4/5.
Assumption 4. An ISI planning must be a bit �exible, but can be close to �xed, as long as the preparation phase is carried out properly (section 4.3.1). This was also the case for interviewees that experienced high uncertainty in the M&A’s environment, which is quite remarkable.
In the realignment, most of the planning constructs were mapped in the preparation phase. Only Discovery was mapped in the facilitation phase. The interviewees unanimously men-tioned the preparation phase, as the phase that is a�ected the most by planning constructs. However, the planning must be poured into wet concrete, so it has to be �exible to change in successive phases. Moreover, the interviewees were speci�c about which part of the preparation phase, namely the end of the preparation phase (section 4.3).
Furthermore, in the realignment, the e�ect of planning constructs on the ISI climate was stated to be big, 4/5. The interviewees state that the e�ect of planning factors on the climate is not as big as that of political considerations. Plan-ning factors can lead to connectedness, having a crystal clear goal together which triggers execution though (section 4.3.3). The e�ect is therefore adjusted to 3/5.
Assumption 5. Although, one interviewee exactly men-tioned that the stated assumption is the case, the other inter-viewees did not mention a positive e�ect of time pressure on performance. Time pressure could have been too severe
in the practitioner’s cases, but this could not be indicated reliably.
In the realignment, time pressure was not mapped to a phase, but was expected to mainly have a large e�ect, 5/5, on the ISI climate. The interviewees map time pressure to both the preparation as well as the facilitation phase and recognize the dependency of the facilitation phase on the preparation phase. Namely, if the preparation phase su�ers from time pressure, it is likely that the facilitation phase can not be carried out as was planned.
The big e�ect of time pressure on the ISI climate, is con-�rmed by the interviewees. It is mentioned as one of the forces that is steering the ISI process. However, it is some-thing that must be dealt with and whose negative e�ect can be mediated, for example, by properly carrying out the prepa-ration phase (section 4.4). It is therefore put at 3/5. Yet, there is expected, that once too severe, it has a large negative e�ect on the climate.
5.2 Final framework
The created ISI process framework, based on the the results from section 4, can be seen in Figures 1 and 2. The former, is the as most important recognized preparation phase. The lat-ter, is the facilitation and evaluation phase grouped together. In the �gures, "Steps" to take in the di�erent phases, chrono-logical from left to right can be seen. The steps can consist of multiple actions and the actions may be performed by multiple "Actors". The actors can use suggested "Tools" to enable successful completion of the di�erent steps. Steps, Actors and Tools were retrieved from section 4.5.
Lastly, the signi�cant ISI constructs from Henningsson et al. [6], complemented with political considerations, which were found to signi�cantly a�ect the ISI outcome, are mapped in "Henningsson’s constructs". The constructs are mapped in the steps that they are likely to in�uence according to their meaning from Appendix Table 1.
5.3 Limitations
This research contains certain limitations. These are men-tioned in this section, their consequences are treated and solutions are proposed.
Some components in the framework were not explicitly mentioned by interviewees, but were derived by analysing the average view3. Additionally, some components were only explicitly mentioned by one or two interviewees, but were included, because it was expected that there would be agree-ment on adding these components, based on the other in-terviews. This agreement was not veri�ed though, so slight misinterpretations can not be ruled out. The transcribed in-terviews in Appendix section D.8 can be consulted to assess the interpretations made.
Figure 1: ISI process framework; preparation phase. The content in the framework was added, because based
on the interviews this content was found to be most im-portant. There is not claimed that this is the only content important for successfully accomplishing the ISI process. For generalizability there is decided on rather general content. Context dependency of the ISI process has been emphasized though, so the framework can be used as a general basis which must interpreted in the ISI context.
Moreover, Henningsson’s constructs were mapped to ex-actly one step, based on their meaning from Appendix Table 1. It is likely that constructs must be mapped to multiple steps. The three arguable constructs were speci�cally investigated, which makes their mapping, and importance regarding the ISI climate most reliable. Mapping of the other constructs needs further investigation to increase reliability.
Assumption 5, related to time pressure, was di�cult to properly re�ect on, because of lacking a measure of time pressure severity. No positive e�ect of time pressure on the ISI decision or outcome was found, but this could be the result of too much time pressure, whose presence could not be properly measured.
Regarding the phases in the framework, there can be seen that most information was gathered about the preparation phase compared to the other two phases. This emphasizes the importance of the preparation phase in the ISI process. Yet, the content of all phases, especially the of facilitation and evaluation must be veri�ed on generalizability, as less information was gathered about these phases.
Figure 2: ISI process framework; facilitation and evaluation phase.
6 Conclusion
This research aimed at answering the following research question: How can the ISI process be modelled to provide M&As with a tool to get a better understanding of the ISI process? This question was answered by de�ning ISI, analysing what is already known about ISI, �nding out why ISI often fails, shifting the ISI focus to a process focus and assessing this focus in practice.
This has resulted in a framework that provides M&As with a tool to get a better understanding of, the in ISI literature underexposed ISI process. The ISI process was divided in three phases by using Schilstra’s model. Interviews with ISI practitioners led to understanding of the best practice ISI process, consisting of the three phases, complemented with steps and actions that must be performed by actors, who can make use of suggested tools. Constructs a�ecting the ISI process were thereby mapped in the framework of which three were speci�cally investigated.
Acknowledging the high percentage of failing M&As, the ISI process being underexposed in ISI literature and the im-portance of ISI for successful M&As, this framework can be used by M&As to improve M&A success.
Future work must mediate the limitations of this research. This can be done by verifying that there are no misinterpre-tations regarding agreement of the interviewees on added
content in the framework, extending the framework to ac-count for context dependency, investigating not in this re-search investigated constructs regarding their mapping in the ISI process and their in�uence on the ISI climate, re-�ecting on Assumption 5, with a reliable measure for time pressure severity and testing the framework’s content on generalizability.
References
[1] Maria Alaranta and Lars Mathiassen. 2013. Managing risks: Post-merger integration of information systems. IT Professional 16, 1 (2013), 30–40.
[2] Maikel Batelaan and Fred Essen. 2000. 10 manieren om fusies te verknoeien: Het inschatten en realiseren van synergie bij fusies en overnames.
[3] Laurence Capron. 1999. The long-term performance of horizontal acquisitions. Strategic management journal 20, 11 (1999), 987–1018. [4] Sandra L Faulkner and Stormy P Trotter. 2017. Data saturation. The
international encyclopedia of communication research methods (2017), 1–2.
[5] Wilhelm Hasselbring. 2000. Information system integration. Commun. ACM 43, 6 (2000), 32–38.
[6] Stefan Henningsson, Philip W Yetton, and Peter J Wynne. 2018. A review of information system integration in mergers and acquisitions. Journal of information Technology 33, 4 (2018), 255–303.
[7] Zahir Irani, Marinos Themistocleous, and Peter ED Love. 2003. The impact of enterprise application integration on information system lifecycles. Information & Management 41, 2 (2003), 177–187.
[8] Godfred Yaw Koi-Akro�. 2016. Mergers and acquisitions failure rates and perspectives on why they fail. International Journal of Innovation and Applied Studies 17, 1 (2016), 150.
[9] Shang-Ping Lin, Shi-Hwa Lo, Ho-Li Yang, et al. 2010. Information sys-tem integration after merger and acquisition in the banking industry. International Scholarly and Scienti�c Research & Innovation 4, 12 (2010), 2239–2243.
[10] Patricia A McLagan. 1997. Competencies: The next generation. Train-ing & development 51, 5 (1997), 40–48.
[11] Omar El Messaoudi. 2020. ’Zakelijke advocatuur druk, maar minder fusie- en overnamewerk’. https://www.accountant.nl/ nieuws/2020/4/zakelijke-advocatuur-druk-maar-minder-fusie--en-overnamewerk/#
[12] Thomas Nelson. 2018. Mergers and Acquisitions from A to Z. Amacom. [13] Krishnakumar D Pandya. 2014. The key competencies of project leader
beyond the essential technical capabilities. IUP Journal of Knowledge Management 12, 4 (2014), 39.
[14] C Northcote Parkinson. 1957. Parkinson’s law. Murray.
[15] Je�rey Pfe�er and Gerald R Salancik. 1974. Organizational decision making as a political process: The case of a university budget. Admin-istrative Science Quarterly (1974), 135–151.
[16] Thomson Reuters. 2016. “Mergers & Acquisitions review- full year 2015.
[17] Tjomme Schilstra, Emőke Takács, and Toon Abcouwer. 2019. COOPER-ATIVE LEARNING IN A HIGHER EDUCATIONAL SETTINGRealizing high-performing cooperative learning in higher education. (2019). [18] Irene Maria Schönreiter. 2018. Methodologies for process
harmoniza-tion in the post-merger integraharmoniza-tion phase. Business Process Management Journal (2018).
[19] Paul Shrivastava. 1986. Postmerger Integration. The Journal of business strategy 7, 1 (Summer 1986), 65. http://proxy.uba.uva.nl:2048/docview/ 1295132418?accountid=14615 Last updated - 2013-02-23.
[20] Angela Wigger. 2012. The Political Interface of Financialisation and the Regulation of Mergers and Acquisitions in the EU. Journal of European Integration 34, 6 (2012), 623–641.
[21] J Hermosillo Worley, Kamran Ali Chatha, Richard H Weston, O Aguirre, and Bernard Grabot. 2005. Implementation and optimisation of ERP systems: A better integration of processes, roles, knowledge and user competencies. Computers in Industry 56, 6 (2005), 620–638. [22] Peter Wynne. 2018. Building IT Resources for Post-Acquisition IS
Integration in Novice Acquirers.. In PACIS. 260.
[23] Işıl Sevilay Yılmaz and Başak Tanyeri. 2016. Global merger and acqui-sition (M&A) activity: 1992–2011. Finance Research Letters 17 (2016), 110–117.
Figure 3: Henningsson’s model, showing which of the constructs of the �ve ISI themes in�uences the ISI decision, the process or the outcome.
A.1 Explanation of Henningsson’s model
In section 1, Henningsson’s model based on a review was mentioned. For the review, Henningsson et al. [6] used the question "How to aggregate, organize and structure what we know about M&A ISI decisions and their outcomes?" (Henningsson et al. [6], p. 4). This question was answered by examining 70 articles on ISI. Common variables were identi�ed by a minimum of �ve replications which can according to the used methodology be called well-utilized variables. Apart from quantity, quality was used as a measure. How this was done is explained in Appendix section A.3.
The model consists of the two dependent variables; ISI decision and ISI outcome. Independent variable categories were indicated as M&A context, Relational �t, Human side, Pre-conditions for delivering and Time and suboptimal decision-making. These are not claimed to be the only or correct ones, but rather a re�ection of what has been found in ISI literature. Studies can identify gaps and other limitations of the model. This is exactly this research’s aim. The gap is identi�ed as a lacking focus on the ISI process, resulting in failing ISIs and therefore M&As, represented by Assumption 1.
Independent variables. In this paragraph more explanation is given on the di�erent independent variable categories and their constructs. To which independent variable categories the constructs belong, can be seen in the legend in Appendix Figure 3. The M&A context. The overall M&A context’s e�ect is signi�cant in understanding how ISI success is accomplished. This is emphasized by an example of a company which growth is for a large share realized by horizontal acquisitions. Horizontal acquisitions are acquisitions of a business within the same industry as the acquirer [3]. This company was highly context dependent; reacting when interesting acquisition parties became available, causing the company not being able to time the acquisitions exactly their way. With respect to ISI, most of the acquired businesses’ IS was retained at �rst. However, corporate synergy could not be accomplished between the divisions that had arisen. At the end, this context dependency resulted in the decision to develop a shared corporate IT platform.
Relational �t. The constructs belonging to this category are limiting the implementation of ISI by limiting the ISI methods to choose from. A result of these factors can be misalignment between business and ISI integration, resulting in a misaligned organization. For good practice, the ISI method and M&A strategy must be matched.
Human side. Human behavior a�ects ISI methods and the other way around. Communication and leadership are important in this category. Research has shown that people involved in and a�ected by the ISI actively shape the ISI outcome and not necessarily according to managerial desire.
Important to note here, is that the human side of ISI is ever more important these days, because of the increasing permeability of organizational boundaries, resulting in ISs being shared with more parties.
Pre-conditions for delivering. This category includes the pre-conditions that must be present to enable successful ISI. Three concepts are typically linked to this theme, namely capabilities, IT infrastructure and relationships between IT and business in the merger. These concepts enable proper decision making on the ISI method, to achieve a certain ISI outcome.
Time and suboptimal decision-making. In Appendix Figure 3 can be seen that the construct time pressure in�uences both the ISI decision and outcome. This pressure can, for example, come from the market which expects bene�t realization and from legislation which obliges reporting and governing risk.
Time pressure has a signi�cant negative e�ect on ISI success. Due to the aforementioned complexity and uncertainty of a M&A, proper evaluation of all options is often di�cult and time pressure increases this di�culty even more.
Moreover, modern IT infrastructures highly path-dependent. This means that hasty sub optimal ISI decisions as a result of time pressure are di�cult to reverse and once decided upon, one must deal with the possible limitations.
A.2 Henningsson’s constructs’ meaning
Table 1: The meaning of Henningsson’s constructs.
Construct Meaning
M&A motivation (MM) The business reasons why (where?) the M&A was decided on. Power and politics (MM) Strategizing for control of the M&A process.
Organizational integration objectives (MM) The ambition to structurally combine elements from the merging parties.
ISI objectives (MM) The strategic objectives assigned to the IS function in the M&A.
Use of external resources (MM) The extent to which external resources, typically sourced as consultants, contribute to the ISI. Time pressure (MM) Caused by internal or external sources to complete ISI.
ISI method (+) The decision on approach used to combine the IS of the merging organization. Integration alignment (+) The �t between the strategy for organizational integration and ISI.
Changes in IS workforce size (0) Missing.
IT communication (++) Communication between IS function and other organizational units during the ISI. IS employee morale (0) IS employees’ spirit and belief in ISI.
User training and support (+) Means for enabling users to transition to the combined IS. Changes in IS policies and procedures (00) Missing.
Decreases in IS sta� compensation (00) M&A-related limitation in the compensation to IS sta�. IT leadership in integration project (++) Quality of the managerial direction during the ISI. IS -business collaboration in planning (+) Degree of IS participation in M&A planning.
Top management support (+) The extent of top management’s commitment to the ISI. ISI proactivity (vs reactivity) (++) The degree to which IS facilitate organizational change or
contribute to deal motivation.
Communication of M&A activities to IS (+) The e�ectiveness by which progress and plans of the M&A are shared with the IS function.
IT investment at target (0) The amount invested annually in the target.
Level of data sharing pre-M&A (0) The level of data sharing in the organizations pre-M&A. Organizational M&A planning (+) Quality of the planning for the organizational integration. Risk management (++) The level of dedicated e�ort to manage risk.
Collaboration dynamics (++) The spirit of collaboration in the project team.
Political considerations (00) The extent to which political considerations drive ISI decision-making. System size/complexity (00) System size and complexity being drivers for ISI decision-making.
IT �exibility (++) The IT assets’ ability to support change in use, commonly compatibility, connectivity, modularity. IT standardization (++) The entropy (lack of predictability?) of IT assets.
Pre-M&A organizational performance (00) The pre-M&A �nancial performance of the organization. Application and IT compatability (+) The compatibility of technical platforms, programming
languages and software.
IS con�guration �t (++) The degree of compatibility between IS con�gurations, drawing on the MIT’90s schema.
EA (enterprise architecture) capability (++) The extent to which the EA capability contributes to the ISI. Discovery (vs consistency) (++) As opposed to planning consistency, the inclusion of emergent
variations in ISI plans throughout the ISI.
Quality of ISI planning (++) The contribution of IS activities to the overall M&A schedule. Time pressure (-) Caused by internal or external sources to complete ISI.
A.3 Henningsson’s quality measure
As quantity alone is not a reliable measure; for example, a �nding can be replicated across 20 di�erent articles, but can be a signi�cant �nding in only one article. The quality of the �ndings was therefore presented by the following notations: ++: positively signi�cant in at least 80 percent of the times, +: positively signi�cant in 60-80 percent of the times, - -: ++, but negatively signi�cant, -: +, but negatively signi�cant, 00: ++, but not signi�cant, 0: +, but not signi�cant, MM: ++, but for a categorical variable and M: +, but for a categorical variable.
A.4 Overlapping constructs
"M&A motivation", "Organizational integration objectives", "ISI objectives" and "ISI method" are marked as "Overlapping" constructs. The �rst two constructs belong to both the independent variable categories M&A context and Relational �t. The third construct belongs to M&A context, Relational �t and Pre-conditions for delivering. ISI method belongs to all �ve independent variable categories.
Appendix B Schilstra’s model
Appendix C Realignment
Confer ence ’17, July 2017, W ashington, DC, USA
Construct Preparation Facilitation Evaluation Climate Acceptability M&A motivation (MM)
Power and politics (MM)
Organizational integration objectives (MM) ISI objectives (MM)
Use of external resources (MM) Time pressure (MM)
ISI method (+)
Integration alignment (+) Changes in IS workforce size (0) IT communication (++)
IS employee morale (0) User training and support (+)
Changes in IS policies and procedures (00) Decreases in IS sta� compensation (00) IT leadership in integration project (++) IS -business collaboration in planning (+) Top management support (+)
ISI proactivity (vs reactivity) (++)
Communication of M&A activities to IS (+) IT investment at target (0)
Level of data sharing pre-M&A (0) Organizational M&A planning (+) Risk management (++) Collaboration dynamics (++) Political considerations (00) System size/complexity (00) IT �exibility (++) IT standardization (++)
Pre-M&A organizational performance (00) Application and IT compatability (+) IS con�guration �t (++)
EA (enterprise architecture) capability (++) Discovery (vs consistency) (++)
Quality of ISI planning (++) Time pressure (-)
Appendix D Interviews
D.1 Interviewees
• Setting the scene interviewee; an enterprise architecture at Zenit. • Practitioners: see Appendix section D.4.
D.2 Interview questions
D.2.1 Introduction of the interviews
Ik heb literatuuronderzoek gedaan en ben tot de conclusie gekomen dat in de informatie system integratie (ISI) literatuur in de M&A context voornamelijk onderzoek gedaan is naar de invloed van factoren op de ISI keuze en ISI uitkomst/resultaten. Het ISI proces (van ISI keuze naar ISI uitkomst) is in mindere mate onderzocht. Dit onderzoek spreekt de verwachting uit dat een gebrek aan onderzoek naar vormgeving van het ISI proces en naar factoren die van invloed zijn op dit proces leidt tot falende M&As. Dit onderzoek tracht daarom tot een generiek kader te komen voor het ISI proces om falende M&As te verminderen.
D.2.2 Se�ing the scene
• To what extent would you consider ISI to be problematic in the M&A context?
• Zenit does possess a disruptive ISI practice. Can you explain why you consider this practice as disruptive? • To what extent is this practice applicable to institutions in di�erent contexts?
D.2.3 Practitioners introducing questions
• Werkt/werkte u voor een organisatie die te maken heeft/heeft gehad met ISI in de M&A context? Zo ja, welke sector kan toegewezen worden aan deze organisatie?
• Is/was uw organisatie de overnemer of de overgenomen partij?
• Welke M&A aanpak of combinatie van heeft u de meeste ervaring mee: absorption, symbiosis, preservation, of holding? For an explanation on the used concepts see section 2.1.2
• Horizontale of verticale overname? For an explanation on the used concepts see section A.1. • Welke van de volgende rollen zou u aanwijzen als rol waar u de meeste expertise in heeft?
– (1) ISI project leader (soft issues); – (2) ISI project’s facilitator (facilitation);
– (3) ISI project contractor/regulator (decision making); – (4) ISI project performer (operating).
For an explanation on the used concepts see section 3.1.2. Additional role speci�c questions:
– (1) Welke “zachte kwesties” (soft issues) zijn gelinkt aan dit construct? – (2) Hoe wordt dit construct goed gefaciliteerd?
– (3) Wat is het belang van dit construct in het beslissingsproces (decision making process) – (4) Wat is de invloed van dit construct op uitvoerbaarheid?
These questions are asked as additional questions on top of the four questions for each arguable construct in section D.2.5. D.2.4 Practitioners ISI process questions
• Hoe hoog is/was de mate van onzekerheid in de omgeving van de organisatie en waar heeft/had dit mee te maken? • In hoeverre vindt het ISI proces plaats in duidelijke stappen/fases en zou u een aantal globale termen kunnen noemen
die de fases van het ISI proces in uw organisatie typeren/typeerde? Bijvoorbeeld: voorbereiding, facilitatie en evaluatie. Table 3: Role speci�c questions.
Question Topic ISI project leader Q 1 Soft issues ISI facilitator Q 2 Facilitation ISI decision maker Q 3 Decision making ISI performer Q 4 Operation
• Wat is het voornaamste doel van elke fase?
• Neigt/neigde de manier van ISI evalueren binnen jullie organisatie meer naar proces of resultaat evaluatie? • Wat zijn/waren voordelen en nadelen van jullie manier van evalueren?
D.2.5 Practitioner arguable construct questions
• Political considerations: politieke overwegingen kunnen bijvoorbeeld leiden tot beschikbaar stellen van een budget of niet wat weer invloed heeft op de ISI methode die gekozen kan worden.
– Hoe groot is/was het e�ect van politieke overwegingen op ISI resultaten in uw organisatie?
– Wat zijn voorbeelden van politieke overwegingen die e�ect hebben/hadden op ISI resultaten in uw organisatie? – Welke fase(s) van het ISI proces in uw organisatie wordt/werd voornamelijk beïnvloed door politieke overwegingen? – Hoe beïnvloeden/beïnvloedden politieke overwegingen de omgeving/het klimaat waarin het ISI proces plaatsvindt/plaatsvond
in uw organisatie?
Omgeving/klimaat = wederzijds respect en gezamenlijke instemming, acceptatie van elkaar, stimulatie van actieve deelname en wederzijds vertrouwen.
• Planning constructs
– Hoe groot is/was het e�ect van M&A en ISI planning op ISI resultaten in uw organisatie?
– Wat zijn voorbeelden van planning factoren die e�ect hebben/hadden op ISI resultaten in uw organisatie? – Welke fase(s) van het ISI proces in uw organisatie wordt/werd voornamelijk beïnvloed door planning factoren? – Hoe beïnvloeden/beïnvloedden planning factoren de omgeving/het klimaat waarin het ISI proces plaatsvindt/plaatsvond
in uw organisatie? • Time pressure
– Hoe groot is/was het e�ect van tijdsdruk op ISI resultaten in uw organisatie?
– Wat zijn voorbeelden van tijdsdruk die e�ect hebben/hadden op ISI resultaten in uw organisatie? – Welke fase(s) van het ISI proces in uw organisatie wordt/werd voornamelijk beïnvloed door tijdsdruk?
– Hoe beïnvloed/beïnvloedden tijdsdruk de omgeving/het klimaat waarin het ISI proces plaatsvindt/plaatsvond in uw organisatie?
D.2.6 Classification of roles
These roles are the following: (1) interpersonal (symbolic), (2) informational (communication; information �ow), (3) decisional, and (4) operational roles (implementation). Examples of these in the ISI process are respectively, an ISI project leader, an ISI facilitator, an ISI decision maker, and an ISI performer.
The ISI project leader is a symbolic, connective and leadership role [21]. In modern times, behavioural competencies, which enable to �x "soft" issues, are essential for a project leader to lead a successful project. The project manager bridges all stakeholders in the project [13]. A speci�c question about soft issues and its link with the constructs was therefore formulated for the project leader.
The ISI facilitator is expected to facilitate that communication between stakeholders in the ISI project can take place properly. It is therefore mainly interpreted as a facilitation function, so not actually bridging between the stakeholders as this function was allocated to the project leader. A speci�c question was therefore formulated for the facilitator about facilitation and its link with the constructs.
The ISI decision maker is likely to have great decisional competencies. A speci�c questions was therefore formulated for the decision maker about decision making and its link with the constructs.
Lastly, the ISI project performer has great operational competencies. To get ISI done, performers need great technical skills and must know what is needed to successfully �nish ISI. This is likely to in�uence and must in�uence ISI decision making as otherwise ISI can not be carried out successfully. Whereas the performers are not considered to be the ones who make the decisions with respect to the three arguable constructs, the performer is subject to these constructs as decisions based on these constructs a�ect the way there can be performed. A speci�c question was therefore formulated for the performer about operation and its link with the constructs.
There must be noted however that such a division is probably too in�exible in times where stakeholder’s responsibilities/roles constantly change [10]. This is likely to make it di�cult to assign exactly one role to the interviewees.
D.3 Setting the scene
The interviewee stated that business and IT infrastructure is often di�cult for companies, with failing projects as a result. Hierarchical organizational structures result in a missing connection between di�erent organizational units.
The interviewee’s ISI solution, the Zenit platform, overcomes this problem by functioning as a shell between di�erent ISs. Hereby, Zenit makes use of business rules; these facilitate data integration, check if platform users behave according to the formulated business rules as well as identify malfunctioning users and systems, and middleware; which is software that facilitates communication between systems by using a common data model.
Zenit enables "pearl distillation" from merging organizations and "cutting of bad apples" whose history can be kept at the same time. This is called the "best of breed" method.
The interviewee thinks that M&A failure is often a result of system thinking. Systems must have a facilitating role in carrying out, the to the M&A attached, business case. To be able to properly ful�ll this role, ISI is really important and therefore makes or breaks the M&A. Culture related factors must thereby not be forgotten, as people often rule the business.
D.4 Practitioners’ general information
Table 4: Results of introducing questions practitioners 1 to 5.
Interviews 1 2 3 4 5
M&A approach Could not be speci�ed Multiple Symbiosis Symbiosis Absorption Sector Healthcare cure,
logis-tics and major industry Consumertronics elec-and consumer-product industry
Care for disabled
peo-ple Banks, softwaredevelopment and media industry
Public order and safety
Horizontal/vertical Horizontal Horizontal Horizontal Horizontal Horizontal Acquirer/Aquired Equivalent, acquired
and acquirer Acquirer Two dominant partiesand one small party Aquirer Acquirer Evaluation focus Result Result Process Result Result
Role(s) All 1,2 and 3 1 and 4 3 and 4 2
Uncertainty High High High Low High
Table 5: Results of introducing questions practitioner 6. 6 Preservation and absorption Safety, de-centralised government Horizontal Acquirer Process 3 Moderate
