APPENDIX B: TABLES
Table 1: Value actions
NR Cost Revenu Risk
Organizational
structure 1
Cost reduction by more efficient organizational
structure
Increased revenu by more
effective organizational structure Culture Clash
2
Cost reduction by removal of overlapping positions
Increased revenu by access to
new markets Overestimated synergies
3
Cost reduction by removal of overlapping activitities
Increased revenu by transfer of best practices
Overspeedig integration (too fast)
4
Cost reduction by product
portfolio rationalization Increased revenu by cros-selling
Underspeeding integration (too slow )
5
Cost reduction by geographic reallocations
(labour/activities)
Increased revenu by market
pow er (pricing) Suboptimal communication
6
Cost reduction by geographic reallocations
(infrastructure)
Increased revenu by increased
marketshare (volume) Suboptimal integration level
7
Cost reduction by market pow er (bargaining pow er)
Increased revenu by new
managerial talent Pow er struggle
8
Cost reduction by divestments
Increased revenu by increased
goodw ill Employee resistance
9
Cost reduction by discontinuing activitites
Increased revenu by increased
amount of pattents Loss of key personnel
10 Cost reduction by lay-offs
Increased revenu by more
effective business processes Loss of clients
Business
processes 11 Reduction in production cost
Increased revenu by leveraging
best practices in sales Loss of suppliers
12 Reduction in marketing cost
Increased revenu by combined
assets Starting PMI process too late
13
Reduction in administration cost
Increased revenu by faster time
to market Poor / Unsound integration plan
14
Reduction in logistic cost (distribution)
Increased revenu by better/new
products Lack of leadership
15 Reduction in R&D cost
Increased revenu by leveraging
best practices in marketing Insufficient Leadership
16 Reduction in Financial cost
Increased revenu by leveraging best practices in business
development Insufficient resources
17 Reduction in Sales cost
Increased revenu by more
effective control systems High Integration cost
Systems 18
Reduction in cost by more optimal systems
Increased revenu by improved employee incentive system
19
Reduction in cost by terminating systems
Increased revenu by improved marketing information system
20
Reduction in cost by more efficient control
21
Reduction in cost by more effective control
22
Reduction in cost by transferring best practices Added in
interview 23
Table 3: Sample justification
Case Code Press Evaluation Company Evaluation Expert Evaluation Source
Case 1 Cost Cost Cost LexisNexis
Case 2 Cost / Market position Cost / Market position Cost / Market Position
Case 3 Growth Growth Growth Elsevier.nl
Case 4 Growth Growth Growth Financieele Dagblad Case 5 Growth Growth Growth Financieele Dagblad Case 6 Growth Growth Growth
NRC Handelsblad via LexisNexis
Case 7 R 1t/m 4 Growth Growth Growth Financieele Dagblad Case 8 R 1t/m 4 Growth Growth Growth Financieele Dagblad
Table 4: Code Book
CODEBOOK
CODE CATEGORY
1 Prop. 1 Strategic Intentions & PMI 1.1 Influence
Table 5: Cost reductions caused by integration (Growth M&A)
Frequency Case respondent Category Geographic Relocations 2 R3, R7c Organ. Str. Lay-offs 2 R3, R6 Organ. Str. Administration cost 2 R3, R6 Business Pr. Sales Cost 4 R3, R6, R7c, R8c Business Pr. Procurement Cost 3 R3, R4, R5 Business Pr. Transfer of best practices 8 R4, R5, R7a, R7c,
R7d, R8a, R8c, R8d
Business Pr. Removal of overlapping
positions 7 R4, R5, R6, R7a, R8a, R8d Organ. Str. Product porfolio
rationalisation 2 R4, R5 Organ. Str. Logistical cost 7 R4, R5, R6, R7a,
R7b, R8a, R8b, Business Pr. Market power (bargaining
power) 9 R4, R5, R6, R7a, R7b, R7c, R8a, R8b, R8c
Organ. Str. Efficient control 2 R7a, R8a Systems Production cost 2 R7b, R8b Business Pr. Divestments 2 R7b, R8b Organ. Str. Financial cost 2 7b, 8b Business Pr. More optimal systems 4 R7c, R7d, R8c,
R8d Systems Overlapping activities 2 R7d, R8d Organ. Str. More effective organizational
structure 2 R7d, R8d Organ. Struc.
Table 6: Revenue creation caused by integration (Growth M&A)
Frequency Case respondent Category Increased marketshare 1 R3, Organ. Str. Market power (pricing) 7 R3, R6, R7a, R7d,
R8a, R8b, R8d Organ. Str. More effective organisational
structure 5 R3, R7b, R7d, R8b, R8d Organ Str. Combined assets 8 R3, R4, R6, R7a,
R7b, R7d, R8a, R8b
Business Pr. New Managerial talent 5 R3, R7a, R7c,
R8c, R8d Organ. Str. Cross-selling 9 R4, R6, R7b, R7c,
R7d, R8a, R8b, R8c, R8d
Organ. Str. Increased amount of pattents 1 R4 Organ. Str. Acces to new markets 6 R5, R6, R7b, R7c,
R8b, R8c Organ. Str. Best practices in marketing 3 R5, R7c, R8c, Business Pr. Better / new products 3 R6, R7d, R8d Business Pr. Transfer of best practices 4 R7a, R7c, R8a,
R8c Business Pr. Increased market share 4 R7a, R7b, R8a,
Table 7: Cost reductions caused by integration (Efficiency M&A)
Frequency Case respondent Category Asset Optimization 1 R1 Business Pr. Procurement cost 2 R1, R2 Business Pr. Transferring best practices 2 R1, R2 Business Pr. Logistic cost 1 R1 Business Pr. Market power 2 R1, R2 Organ. Str. Removal of overlapping
activities 1 R2 Organ. Str. Reduction in R&D cost 1 R2 Business Pr. Terminating systems 1 R2 Systems
Table 8: Revenue creation caused by integration (Efficiency M&A)
Frequency Case respondent Category Best practices in sales 2 R1, R2 Business. Pr. Cross-selling 2 R1, R2 Organ. Str. Market power 1 R1 Organ. Str. Market share 1 R1 Organ. Str. Acces to new market 1 R2 Organ. Str. Combined assets 1 R2 Business. Pr. Best practices in marketing 1 R2 Business Pr.
Table 9: Top 5 problems / integration risks (Growth M&A)
Frequency Case respondent Overspeeding integration 5 R3, R4, R5, R7a, R8a Employee resistance 3 R3, R7d, R8d
Loss of key personnel 8 R3, R4, R5, R6, R7a, R7b, R8a, R8b Loss of clients 1 R3
Lack of leadership 4 R3, R6, R7d, R8d
Sub-optimal communication 8 R3, R6, R7a, R7b, R7c, R8a, R8b, R8c Insufficiënt leadership 4 R4, R5, R7b, R8b
Culture clash 9 R4, R5, R6, R7a, R7b, R7c, R8a, R8b, R8c
Power struggle 5 R6, R7a, R7c, R8a, R8c Insufficiënt resources 3 R6, R7d, R8d
Sub-optimal integration level 8 R7a, R7b, R7c, R7d, R8a, R8b, R8c, R8d
Overestimating synergies 2 R7c, R8c
Table 10: Top 5 problems / integration risks (Efficiency M&A)
Frequency Case respondent Culture clash 1 R1
Table 12: What to do differently next time (Growth M&A)
Frequency Case respondent
More elaborate internal check 1 R3
Leadership issues 4 R4, R5, R7d, R8d Early integration planning 3 R4, R5, R6 Better communication 3 R4, R5, R6 More attention for cultural differences 2 R4, R5 More attention for change management 2 R4, R5 Less risk avers 1 R6
Be clear on integration strategy and M&A type 3 R6, R7c, R8b Slower integration of some parts 2 R7a, R8a Involve more outside people in integration process 2 R7b, R8b Act on all three design factors 2 R7b, R8b Clear project ownership 2 R7d, R8d Sufficient resources 2 R7d, R8d
Table 13: What to do differently next time (Efficiency M&A)
Frequency Case Respondent
APPENDIX C: INTERVIEW
INTERVIEW
With this interview I want to collect data for my thesis research of which the research question is: How does post merger integration strategy design lead to value creation in Dutch cross-border M&A transactions of different strategic intent?
The interview will consist of open and closed questions. During the interview I will work with cards in which you will be as to make a prioritization. If you approve I would like to record this interview.
• General
1) What was your role in the integration process? 2) What was the strategic intention of the M&A?
> Choice of 4, order of importance. 3) Did the M&A deal fulfill its strategic intent?
Far below
expectations expectations Below According to plan expectationsAbove expectations Far above
-- - Neutral + ++ 4) Was the result of the total M&A as expected (as far as known) when looking at the total M&A and not the integration specifically?
Far below
expectations expectations Below According to plan expectationsAbove expectations Far above
-- - Neutral + ++
5) Why did you choose for M&A and not an organic / internal development of the strategic intentions?
• Integratie
[In the following questions I want to place the integration in a theoretical spectrum. I will show you to figures. I would like you to indicate where your M&A deal falls in this
spectrum. You do not have to respect the inner boundaries of the figure.] 6) What did your integration look like? (see tabel)
[This figure ask about the integration approach. It defines 2 dimensions of the integration, the depth and the speed. The figure gives four scenarios:
Quickwins, realize quick wins, fast beter results, integration later.
Hands-off: Period of rest after M&A. After introduction period integration is started. Physical: Physically merging alike departments.
Blueprint: Define new situation in detail before integration starts.]
> Level of integration: Symbiosis, absorption, Preservation (choose from tabel)
[ This figure ask about the level of integration. It defines two dimensions. Organisational autonomy and strategic interdependence. It gives four scenario’s:
Preservation: Low integration to preserve capabilities Symbiosis: partial integration
Absorption: Full consolidation of all activities.
Holding: stand alone, consolidation only of financials.]
7) What were the most important points / succesfactors from your integration strategy? When was the integration a succes?
> Within what time frame should it be accomplished? 8) Was there a n integration team?
9 Does the M&A’s strategic intent influence the PMI strategy design? Very weak
influence influence Weak Strong influence strong Very influence
-- - Neutral + ++
10) Does the PMI strategy help to reach the strategic intention? Very
negative influence
Negative
influence Positive influence positive Very influence
-- - Neutral + ++ 11) In what fase was started with planning and preapring the integration?
> Was this early enough?
12) Was it a slow or a fast integration?
> How many days were accounted for? • Value creation
[The next questions are about value creation in the M&A deal. In this research value creation is seen as shareholder value: creating extra revenu, lowering cost, or lowering risk. For the following questions in is required to see value creation in terms of cost and revenue.]
13) : Did the PMI strategy influence value creation in the M&A? Very weak
influence influence Weak Strong influence strong Very influence
14) What area received most attention in the integration? > Can you indicate what is done per area?
Business Processes Organizational Structure Systems 1) Logistics 1) Infrastructure 1) Management 2) Procurement 2) Set-up 2) Financial 3) Production 3) Legal 3) ICT
4) Marketing & Sales 4) Business units 4) Logistics 5) Research &
Development 5) Integration level 5) HR 6) Financials
7) Human Resources
[As indicated, value creation in this research is seen in terms of reduced cost, created revenue and reduced risk. You will now get to see cards with different options within each category, the so-called value actions. I would like you to select a top 5 out of these options of actions that occurred in this M&A deal. ]
15) Can you select a top 5 of cost reducing actions that occurred due to the integration? 16) Can you select a top 5 of value creating actions that occured duet o the integration? 17) In what area did the most value creation occur?
Business Processes Organizational Structure Systems 17b) Was this mainly cost reduction, risk reduction or revenue creation? 18) In what area did the least value creation occur?
Business Processes Organizational Structure Systems 19) Were there unexpected value sources?
> Was this mainly cost reduction, risk reduction or revenue creation? • Risks
[The following questions are about risks and problems encoutered during the PMI] 20) Wat were the top 5 risks encountered in the PMI?
> Were these expected
> What were causes of these problems?
> What did you do to cope with these problems? 21) To what extent did the PMI problems hinder value creation?
Very low
extent Low extent extent High Very high extent
• Concluding
22) Is the anticipated value created in the M&A deal? Far below
expectation expectation Below According to plan expectationAbove expectation Far above
-- - Neutral + ++ 23) To what extent did the PMI strategy cause the value creation in the M&A deal?
Very low
extent Low extent extent High Very high extent
-- - Neutral + ++ 24) When looking back at the goals of the integration strategy, was the integration succesfull?
Far below
expectation expectation Below According to plan expectationAbove expectation Far above
-- - Neutral + ++ > What areas?
25) What would you do differently in the next PMI process?
