Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Thomas Blumer - Knowledge Transfer in M&A
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Thomas Blumer - Knowledge Transfer in M&A

1,035

Published on

Published in: Business
0 Comments
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,035
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
30
Comments
0
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • (Badrtalei & Bates, 2007; Brahma & Srivastava, 2007; Cartwright & Schoenberg, 2006; Cools, Gell, Kengelback, & Roos, 2007; Firstbrook, 2007; Gopinath, 2003). (Mathew & Kavitha, 2008; Moitra & Kumar, 2007; Pritchett, Robinson, & Clarkson, 1997).(Schmidt, 2002). (Chreim, 2007; Inkpen, 2008; Junni, 2007; Riege, 2007; Schleimer & Riege, 2009; Stahl & Mendenhall, 2005).
  • aLangdridge (2007); bPhillips and Burbules (2000)qualitative research may suffer from postpositive research paradigm, a term coined by Phillips and Burbules (2000). Postpositive means that the researcher cannot be positive about the results of their studies when focusing on human behavior or actions. Studies are often a reduction of the reality and leave out certain important variables for different reasons—variables that may be important to understand the system (Phillips & Burbules, 2000; Watzlawick, Beavin-Bavelas, & Jackson, 1967)
  • Age: 30-39, 5 participants, 23%40-49, 8 participants, 36%50-59, 8 participants, 36%>60, 1 participants, 5%GenderMale, 18 participants, 82%Female, 4 participants, 18%RaceCaucasian, 18 participants, 82%Hispanic, 2 participants, 9%Mix, 1 participant, 4.5%Asian, 1 participant, 4.5%PositionManagers, 12 participants, 55%Executives, 6 participants, 27%Employees, 4 participants, 18%New Work LocationNo move, 9 participants, 41%Branch or subsidiary (acquirer), 8 participants, 36%Headquarters (acquirer), 3 participants, 14%Left the company, 2 participants, 9%
  • PopulationOverall, the enterprise software industry employ around 2.6 million people or 1.95% of all occupations (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2008). Fulmer (1986) extrapolated that 20 - 25% of the US workforce were affected by mergers whereas Buono and Bowditch estimated that number to be at around 10%.Sample SizeSmith et al. (2009) recommended keeping the number of participants between 3 and 6;Dukes (1984) recommended to study between 3 and 10 individuals;Riemen (1986) used 10 individuals;Langdridge (2007) mentioned that most phenomenological research projects have no more than 6 participants;Wolff (2002) recommended 8 to 12 participants;Miller and Salkind (2002) and Bligh (2006) suggested 10 or fewer;Leedy and Ormrod (2009) suggested keeping the sample size between 5 and 25 individuals;Gordon (1992) and Clayton (1997) suggested a sample size of between 15 and 25 participants.
  • SupportFoos, Schum, and Rothenberg (2006) recommended fostering an environment of trust for the tacit knowledge exchange.McCaskey (1982) stated that unclear, multiple, or conflicting goals created ambiguous situations.
  • SupportWhile direct communication with employees had the biggest influence on their work attitude, indirect information from customers or the press could influence work attitude as well (Beard, Boyd, & Fix Conti, 2007).
  • SupportDixon (2000) stated that there was a surprising variety of processes aimed at knowledge transfer and that one size does not fit all. Girdauskiené and Savaneviciené (2007) stated that knowledge management should be an integrated part of other strategies to make knowledge transfer a transparent routine and not an added task.
  • SupportGalpin and Herndon (2007) stated that ideas, successes, and failures should be shared openly for learning and validation.Parkes, Hasegawa, and Manjunatha (2010) proposed an approach to validate data before data was transferred.
  • SupportGalpin and Herndon (2007) stated that “sharing the [integration] experience with newly acquired employees is a good way to build trust and to facilitate knowledge transfer.”Youngjin, Lyytinen, and Heo (2007) stated that the influence of managerial decisions on knowledge management has not yet been adequately addressed.
  • SupportZollo and Meier (2008) found that only 1% of M&A research focused on knowledge transfer during integrations.
  • SupportBuono and Bowditch (2003) stated, "By focusing on relevant behaviors and interactions, managers can begin to shape the outcomes they desire by setting explicit expectations and performance standards, rewarding appropriate behaviors, and providing channels through which people can contribute to goals and objectives.“ Aronson (2007) stated that changing behavior is one of the most effective ways to change beliefs and values.
  • SupportWenger, White, and Smith (2009) stated that communities of practice connect individuals and groups with each other through synchronous and asynchronous tools, and foster participation through activities, conversations, and reflections.
  • SupportLevi Strauss put the rehiring approach to the extreme and forced everyone to reapply for work based on the principle of "can you add value to the firm" (Windsor, 2003).
  • SupportPritchet et al. (1997) observed that during M&A integrations, employees and managers created hidden agendas for self-protection. As a result, “Employee behavior is founded much more on emotion and obscure motives, less on apparent logic or rational thought” (Pritchet et al., 1997, p. 42). Galpin and Herndon (2007) recommended that “defining clear lines of authority can mitigate the politics and create a ‘back to business’ attitude” (p. 64).
  • SupportHoll and Pickering (1991) stated that M&A deals are successful if the rate of return (discounted cash flow) from the acquired firm is positive, and if the acquisition increases the market value of the firm.
  • SupportBruner and Bruner (2004) recommended setting M&A goals and benchmarks.
  • SupportSenior executives regularly explain their strategies and decisions to corporate boards as they have to bear more responsibility. The boards are driven towards more transparency through increased accountability (Moeller & Brady, 2007).
  • SupportThere are many benefits of merging a sales force; for example, cross-selling, cost saving, and communication unity (Lajoux, 2006).
  • SupportThe most significant point for M&A integration success is leadership (Stahl, Mendenhall, & Weber, 2005).
  • SupportPeople are willing to share their knowledge, which can only happen if the new company has the capacity to absorb the knowledge (Szulanski, 1996).
  • SupportYoungjin, Lyytinen, and Heo (2007) stated that research has paid little attention to how managerial decisions influence knowledge management. Vlaar, Van den Bosch, and Volberda (2006) recommended to research how communication effects sense-making in collaborative relationships.
  • SupportBarnevik stated, "You don't inform, you overinform (Taylor, 1991).Covey (2004) stated that effective communication is based on the principle "seek first to understand, then to be understood" (p. 235).
  • SupportOne key trend in M&A is to acquire a company to access their knowledge workers and to obtain the intellectual property (Sherman & Hart, 2006).
  • SupportJob security and the quality of a reward system are important, because these tools lower employees’ resistance and increase the chance of retaining key employees (Stahl et al., 2005).
  • SupportGalpin and Herndon (2007) explained the process of appointing subject matter experts to the integration team.
  • SupportLittle attention has been paid on the leadership capabilities to improve the M&A process (Sitkin & Pablo, 2004).Computer system integrations and their impact were discussed by Adolph, Pettit, and Sisk (2009).
  • SupportLajoux (2006) provided a checklist of knowledge management related tasks for mergers; however, many of the recommendations are generic to knowledge management or on a system level.
  • Why Qualitative?(Cartwright & Schoenberg, 2006) 30 years of research has not yet found the right M&A success factors(King, Dalton, Daily, & Covin, 2004) future research should focus on identifying the “right” set of variables as predictors of performance.(Stahl, Mendenhall, & Weber, 2005) recommended that future studies should apply a more holistic approachLangdridge (2007)-The descriptive phenomenology is widely used in psychology and nursing and not deep enough; -The critical narrative analysis (CNA) uses a sophisticated predefined process of narrative data analysis and is a newer form; -The interpretative phenomenological analysis focuses more on hermeneutics and interpretation. Langdridge (2007) -The IPA approach is popular among health and other applied psychologists. Newer approach most work in the UK (Smith, Flowers, & Larkin, 2009). -Template analysis uses coding frame constructed prior to collecting data, narrows approach (Langdridge, 2007). -Hermeneutic phenomenology involves the thematic analysis of data and has grown in popularity in applied science. (hermeneutics = The branch of knowledge that deals with interpretation)
  • Transcript

    • 1. Best Practices for Knowledge Transfer in Merger & Acquisition Integrations: A Phenomenological Study Dr. Thomas Blumer April 15, 2014
    • 2. 2 Quick Introduction Dr. Thomas Blumer (tfb@qad.com) Director of Knowledge Management at QAD Specialty: KM, Systems Integrations, M&A, KPIs DBA in Business Administration MBA in Technology Management BS in Business Administration (Finance)
    • 3. Agenda • Research Study Background • Data Analysis • Conclusions • Implications for Companies • Implications for Leaders • Recommendations 3
    • 4. Research Study Background 4
    • 5. The Four Dimensions Knowledge Transfer M&A Integrations Phenomenology U. S. Enterprise Software Industry 5
    • 6. 6
    • 7. Problem Statement • Approximately 50% of M&A destroyed value for shareholders of the acquiring company(a) • Knowledge has become one of the main assets for the enterprise software industry (b) • Less than 24% of companies achieved access to talent or know- how through M&A (c) • Little research exists on how M&A process influences knowledge transfer, which is crucial for acquiring, understanding, and incorporating newly purchased knowledge (d) 7
    • 8. Purpose Statement The purpose of this qualitative phenomenological study was to identify and explore best practices for knowledge transfer in mergers and acquisitions integrations in the U. S. enterprise software industry. 8
    • 9. Research Question How do people successfully transfer knowledge during a merger or acquisition integration? 9
    • 10. Limitations 10 • Self-collected data - Bias towards managers and executives • Research - Phenomenology is subjective (a) - Postpositive when dealing with human behavior (b) Postpositive means that the researcher cannot be positive about the results of their studies when focusing on human behavior or actions. Studies are often a reduction of the reality and leave out certain important variables for different reasons—variables that may be important to understand the system (Phillips & Burbules, 2000; Watzlawick, Beavin-Bavelas, & Jackson, 1967).
    • 11. Delimitations • Focus on enterprise software industry • Focus on United States • Focus on people with M&A and knowledge transfer experience • Focus on the M&A integration process 11
    • 12. Data Analysis 12
    • 13. Sample Demographics (n=22) 13 30-39 years 40-49 years 50-59 years 60 years and over Age Male Female Gender ManagerExecutive Employee Position No move Branch or subsidiary (acquirer) Headquarters (acquirer) Left company New Work Location Caucasian Hispanic Mix Asian Race
    • 14. Sample Population Criteria • Enterprise software industry - IT - Support - Services - (Sales) • M&A experience • Knowledge transfer experience • Sequential sampling (a) (Maximum variation until saturation) 14 aGhauri & Gronhaug (2005)
    • 15. Findings Overview Category Theme Sources Percenta References Percentb M&A 1. M&A Integrations 22 100% 407 21% Knowledge Management 2. Communication 22 100% 442 23% 3. Knowledge Transfer 21 95% 180 9% 4. Lost Knowledge 21 95% 95 5% 5. Information Ambiguity 18 82% 60 3% Organizational 6. Management 22 100% 227 12% 7. Organizational Culture 22 100% 189 10% 8. Information Systems 21 95% 164 8% Personal 9. Trust 20 91% 97 5% 10. Feelings 19 86% 97 5% Total 22 100% 1958 100% 15Note. aRepresents the number of participants compared to the whole sample (n=22); bRepresents the number of references compared to all the references within this category (n=1958).
    • 16. 10 Core Themes by Importance 16 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 21% 40% 30% 10% M&A Knowledge Transfer Organizational Personal
    • 17. Core Themes Word Similarity 17
    • 18. 10 Conclusions 18
    • 19. Define and communicate M&A goals Statement Executives had to explain the strategic M&A goals to integration managers, line managers, employees, and IT. Example One of the dilemmas as stated by Participant 5 was that executives did not want to share goals clearly and honestly up front because of the fear that valuable employees who were needed for integration work might leave the company too early unless they were given a strategic function. However, manager should communicate the goals clearly to secure the strategic resources. What’s new Executives should ensure strategic success by communicating M&A goals clearly and openly with the risk of creating tactical integration issues for non-critical business units rather than doing the opposite. 19
    • 20. Deliver consistent messages Statement It was important to synchronize internal and external communication. Example Participant 5 mentioned, "And they [communication from management] have stayed very consistent. And they are not saying something to the press and then something else to us." What’s new Holistic view on communication including reputation. 20
    • 21. Select the appropriate transfer channel for the knowledge Statement There are different kinds of knowledge, and each requires a different transfer approach (e.g., IT knowledge, business knowledge, and M&A knowledge). Example Participant 4 stated, “In a merger situation, the solutions for, making knowledge management a smooth affair is actually outside knowledge management, on the strategic level.“ What’s new Cross-divisional solutions: • Business process ensures knowledge transfer. • Knowledge management ensures that the right knowledge is preserved during integrations. 21
    • 22. Avoid knowledge transfer traps Statement The knowledge transfer trap is a situation in which the knowledge or the data was transferred, but it was useless. Example • Participant 1 mentioned that the data from their knowledge base was transferred into the new system; however, neither customers nor support engineers could find the content anymore because the search engine was overwhelmed. • Participant 18 stated that the complexity of the acquired product required employees with a PhD to work in customer support, although the patents were successfully transferred. What’s new The possibility of successful transfer without value. 22
    • 23. Manage perception differences between companies Statement Everyone interpreted the situation through his or her frame of reference, which caused information ambiguities. Example • Different information depended on who you talk to. Different people in different positions have different viewpoints (Participant 14). • This difference was often big between the acquirer and the acquired company. The issue is that effective knowledge transfer requires understanding (Participant 6). What’s new The true meaning of the M&A impact cannot be fully understood by studying M&A or by managing an integration, but by going through an adapt-and-go integration as an acquiree. 23
    • 24. Back up knowledge transfer with decisions Statement Management decisions had a direct impact on the M&A integration and on knowledge management. It all boiled down to having access to resources, getting budget allocations, and gaining sponsorship for the KT initiatives. Example • Participant 15 elaborated on how senior management allocated time for the knowledge management initiative and stressed the importance that the commitment has to go beyond lip service. • C-level support was important to ensure knowledge-sharing goals were set from the top all the way down to kick-start a knowledge-sharing culture (Participant 4). What’s new Literature has paid little attention to knowledge transfer during M&A (Zollo & Meier, 2008), and the same is true for the influence of management (Sitkin & Pablo, 2004). This research provided some practical examples. 24
    • 25. Focus on behavior, not culture Statement In addition to the mental changes in the behavior, this study found instances where systematic processes were introduced to enforce the new way. Participant 2 summed it up like this: “And guess what? The systems don’t allow you to do it the old way.” Example The program was called KM stars and rewarded people for knowledge- sharing activities. By creating this program and financially rewarding people for sharing, this initiative sent the message to employees that senior management found knowledge sharing important (Participant 10). What’s new The research provided practical examples on how to overcome knowledge transfer challenges in M&A integrations. 25
    • 26. Foster interactive systems Statement Technology, like public instant messaging, enabled knowledge transfer before IT people started integrating systems. Example There are many interactive systems available and Participant 6 mentioned, "Fundamentally no one of them is critical. But the collection of them together." Participant 22 mentioned that communities of practice enabled new members to participate quickly in role-specific discussions company-wide and to be recognized as experts within weeks What’s new Literature did not focus on the additional challenges for communities of practice during M&A integrations, such as budget allocations for migrating systems or onboarding of new employees. 26
    • 27. Improve the organizational socialization process Statement This study revealed the importance of organizational socialization; the integration teams should first focus on managers and then employees to create a trusting culture, which companies need for knowledge transfer. Example • Participant 6 stated, "You’ve got to be re-recruited.... And if you don’t feel as if you’ve been brought in and that you’re an important part of the team, you’re going to drift away." • Participant 13 stated that employees chose the companies they worked for before a merger; however, in a merger, many employees move into the new company simply to have a job—it is not a cognizant decision to join a particular company. What’s new Organizational socialization goes beyond learning the new tools: it includes learning how to navigate in the new organization efficiently and effectively. 27
    • 28. Remove negative emotions and political barriers Statement Managers made a difference in integrations, shaped organizational cultures, selected information systems, built trust, and influenced with their actions the feelings of the employees. Example Participants 10 and 22 mentioned that communities of practice highlighted professionalism and removed the politics, which helped to overcome barriers to knowledge sharing. This was particularly true if sharing was incentivized, linked to a promotion path (Participant 10), or embedded in standard operating procedures or computer systems (Participant 4). What’s new The difference to the existing literature is that this research provided practical best practices on how to overcome these kinds of challenges. 28
    • 29. Conclusions • Define and communicate M&A goals • Deliver consistent messages • Select the appropriate transfer channel for the knowledge • Avoid knowledge transfer traps • Manage perception differences between companies • Back up knowledge transfer with decisions • Focus on behavior, not culture • Foster interactive systems • Improve the organizational socialization process • Remove negative emotions and political barriers 29
    • 30. 4 Implications for Companies 30
    • 31. Ensure sustainable profits Statement The following implications for companies all support ensuring sustainable profits. Mastering the integration process does not guarantee financial success Example • Participant 11 mentioned that 6 years after the acquisition, 50% of the workforce was reduced. • Participant 18 mentioned that the financial outcomes of M&A deals were kept secret because the financial goals were seldom reached. What’s new Knowledge transfer is required to set realistic M&A goals and to ensure ongoing profit. Sustainable profits require a sales force that knows how to sell the acquired product and an R&D organization that can leverage the acquired intellectual property to build the next generation of the product. 31
    • 32. Set the right M&A goals Statement The M&A deal price often determines the financial M&A goals, which are often unrealistic. Example • Participant 18 recommended engaging in OEM deals first to get a good understanding of the potential of the company. • Participant 18 elaborated on the connection between M&A deal price and M&A goals. If the M&A goals are too low, shareholders may not approve a deal; if the goals are high to meet the deal price, they become unrealistic. • Participant 13 mentioned that the integration teams should have actively communicated which of the initial M&A goals they could accomplish and which goals would change. What’s new Enhanced understanding of (a) the conflict between the M&A deal price and the M&A goals and (b) the communication challenge of the true M&A goals. 32
    • 33. Establish accountability Statement Ongoing reorganizations and management changes make M&A accountability difficult. This is particularly challenging as the success of a M&A deal is not visible for many months or even years. Example “After two or three years after you see results, very few people will be in that room comparing the results and understanding what did work and didn’t work” (Participant 18) What’s new The study illustrated how M&A goals are set and why accountability and transparency are difficult. 33
    • 34. Maintain a strong sales force Statement A strong sales force ensures reaching the M&A goals; however, transferring sales competencies is difficult. The sales force is often not interested in learning new products or does not have the capacity. Example • Participant 5 mentioned that the existing sales force seldom wanted to take on new products and that special incentives had to be set. • Participant 18 agreed and stated that after years of losing market share the company realized the importance of keeping the acquired sales teams together (separate) and focusing on their core products. What’s new The research questioned the advantage of a combined sales force because of the increased complexity and the missing passion. If merging sales forces is required, timing, training, and compensation are crucial. 34
    • 35. Implications for Companies • Ensure sustainable profits • Set the right M&A goals • Establish accountability • Maintain a strong sales force 35
    • 36. 3 Implications for Leaders 36
    • 37. Leadership matters Statement Knowledge transfer is driven by leaders through their understanding, actions, and decisions. Example • Engaged leaders aligned and motivated their teams and removed roadblocks to speed up the integration process (Participants 4, 6, 18, 19). • Disengaged, self-serving leaders jeopardized integrations, delayed the integrations, and created additional stress (Participant 17). What’s new Leaders have to be aware of their feelings and the feelings of employees during M&A integration. After leading several acquisitions, Participant 16 realized what it meant to be acquired once his company got acquired. 37
    • 38. M&A integrations can be improved Statement Integrations can be improved by following the best practices for knowledge transfer; for example the ones discussed in this research. Example The research identified lost opportunities, particularly around key knowledge holders. For example, the sales force is not just important for maintaining the prognosticated revenue; the knowledge from the sales force is difficult to transfer and existing sales people are often reluctant to take on new responsibilities (Participant 5, 18, and 20). What’s new The research showed the complexity of M&A integration, the political struggles, and the challenge of determine the right integration points for the different departments. Each integration is different; however, clear communication— particularly around the true M&A goals and applying the discussed knowledge transfer best practices—is universal. 38
    • 39. Communication and decisions are important Statement Communication built the foundation for knowledge transfer by informing employees, building trust, and engaging employees. Decisions need to reflect what was communicated because contradictory, direction-changing, or secret decisions jeopardized trust. Example • Changing the integration approach midstream from a symbiotic approach, where people are excited to work on a new solution, to an adaption approach, is detrimental (Participants 6 and 19). • Participant 2 elaborated on his frustration regarding a foregone conclusion for the new development platform. What’s new The conducted interviews provided extensive insight into the communication process, the communication systems, the communication methods, and the different sources of information. In addition, knowledge transfer relies on the manager selecting the right integration approach, the right integration teams, the right tools, and the right process adjustments. 39
    • 40. Implications for Leaders • Leadership matters • M&A integrations can be improved • Communication and decisions are important 40
    • 41. 6 Recommendations 41
    • 42. Over-communicate Statement During an M&A integration, managers have to use every communication channel to reach their employees and to inform and engage them. Example • "I mean the key to M&A is communication." Leaders do not just have to communicate—they have to over-communicate (Participant 19). • Participant 6 confirmed that only 10% of the communication gets through to people and that communication depends on a good understanding by the parties involved. What’s new The research highlighted that several participants were not clear about the true M&A intentions. The combination of open communication, frequency of communication, understanding of the parties, and selection of the right communication channels will improve the situation. 42
    • 43. Identify and secure knowledge Statement Participants 4 and 18 stressed the importance of identifying the strategic knowledge holders. Example • When managers had to reduce their teams during M&A integration, managers often selected the tactical specialists to keep operations running, and the strategic people were dismissed (Participant 4). • Participants 17 and 18 mentioned how certain products could not be supported without one or two key specialists. What’s new The research highlighted the challenges for managers between ensuring continuity of the current operation and ensuring future growth. As a result, a company needs to secure knowledge from a strategic point to ensure the next generation of the software can be developed. 43
    • 44. Instill job security Statement During M&A integrations, managers and integration teams have to instill job security for the resources the company needs. Example • As a manager, it is important to ensure job security for the important knowledge assets. Retention plans, compensation, and career opportunities have to be aligned with the message of who is important to the company (Participants 1, 3, 5, 6, 12, 14, 17, and 18). • In addition to retention bonuses, three participants (Participants 12, 14, and 18) recommended keeping successful teams together. What’s new Transparency, good communication, and applying the right HR tools such as retention bonuses have to be aligned. Employees have to be aware of the true M&A goals to ensure themselves of their importance. 44
    • 45. Carefully select integration team members Statement Integration team members should be subject matter experts, have worked in M&A integrations, and preferably know both companies. Example • Appointing the right experts to the integration teams is not easy for political reasons; the managers are often neither integrations experts nor subject matter experts (Participants 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, and 20). • In addition, four participants recommended employing third-party M&A experts, at least as mediators (Participants 4, 13, 15, and 20). What’s new The study revealed the political challenges of finding subject matter experts. For example, certain managers participated in high-level discussions for self-serving purposes and excluded themselves from lower level process work, while the integration teams had to go through several iterations of potential subject matters until the true ones were discovered. 45
    • 46. Adjust systems and processes Statement The true value of knowledge comes from sharing the knowledge across the company by adjusting the systems and processes to support the transfer. Example • Participant 4 mentioned that knowledge transfer should be embedded in processes and systems to ensure that changes are sustainable. • Sustainability was an important aspect for M&A integration and was highlighted by 13 participants (Participants 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 20). • Participant 10 proposed that knowledge-sharing activities should be tracked, communicated, celebrated, and a prerequisite to promotion. What’s new Knowledge transfer requires adjusting existing business processes, which often requires adjusting computer systems to enforce the change. 46
    • 47. Influence the KT culture Statement Managers can and should actively influence the organizational culture and kick-start a knowledge transferring culture after an M&A integration. Example • Participant 4 suggested kick starting the knowledge-sharing culture, setting clear knowledge transfer goals for the leadership team, and creating mixed teams for enhanced knowledge transfer. • Managers should balance their teams with employees from the acquired and the acquiring companies (Participants 4, 12, and 13). Not only does such a decision create trust, it also helps propagate knowledge. Separate teams had minimal interactions with each other and knowledge was hardly exchanged (Participant 11). • It is important to differentiate which teams to migrate quickly to improve knowledge transfer and which teams to keep separated to ensure an uninterrupted revenue stream (Participants 18 and 20). What’s new The interconnectedness of soft components, processes, and systems during M&A integrations. 47
    • 48. Recommendations • Over-communicate • Identify and secure knowledge • Instill job security • Carefully select integration team members • Adjust systems and processes • Influence the KT culture 48
    • 49. Researcher’s Reflections • Bias - Selection of participants - Preference for pragmatic approaches • Surprises - Every participant could contribute something new - Dissonance between self-view of acquirer and view from acquired company - Underestimation of the importance of the sales force 49
    • 50. Theory meets Practices – NVivo 9 50 Theme Sources References Sub-Theme Section Sub-Section Source Reference Annotation Meaning Units Essence Theme
    • 51. Further Research • Continue qualitative exploration in different setting - Different companies - Different industries - Different countries • Test findings with quantitative approach and build grounded theory • Processes - Establishing effective integration teams - Building a new organizational culture • People - Organizational socialization process of existing employees - Sustainability of career opportunities • Tools - Influence of extract, transform, load (ETL) tools & web cameras 51
    • 52. Questions 52 Dr. Thomas Blumer tfb@qad.com (805) 452 5731
    • 53. References • Adolph, G., Pettit, J., & Sisk, M. (2009). Merge ahead: mastering the five enduring trends of artful M&A. McGraw-Hill. • Aronson, E. (2007). The social animal (10 ed.). New York, NY: Worth Publishers. • Badrtalei, J. & Bates, D. L. (2007, June). Effect of organizational cultures on mergers and acquisitions: The case of Daimler Chrysler. International Journal of Management, 24(2), 303-317. • Beard, M., Boyd, L., & Fix Conti, S. (2007). M&A integration: CEO's field guide to the art & process of effective merger integration. Kearney, NE: Professional Growth Press. • Brahma, S. S. & Srivastava, K. B. L. (2007, December). Communication, executive retention, and employee stress as predictors of acquisition performance: An empirical evidence. ICFAI Journal of Mergers & Acquisitions, 4(4), 7-26. • Bruner, J. E. & Bruner, A. W. (2004). Applied mergers and acquisitions. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley. • Buono, A. F. & Bowditch, J. L. (2003). The human side of mergers and acquisitions: Managing collisions between people, cultures, and organizations. Washington, DC: Beard Books. 53
    • 54. References Cartwright, S. & Schoenberg, R. (2006, March). Thirty years of mergers and acquisitions research: Recent advances and future opportunities. British Journal of Management, 17 , S1-S5. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8551.2006.00475.x Chreim, S. (2007). Social and temporal influences on interpretations of organizational identity and acquisition integration: A narrative study. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 43(4), 449-480. doi:10.1177/0021886307307345 Cools, K., Gell, J., Kengelback, J., & Roos, A. (2007, July). The brave new world of M&A. Retrieved from http://www.bcg.com/publications/files/Brave_New_World_MA_Aug_2007.pdf Covey, S. R. (2004). The 7 habits of highly effective people. New York, NY: Free Press. Dixon, N. M. (2000). Common knowledge: How companies thrive by sharing what they know. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Firstbrook, C. (2007). Transnational mergers and acquisitions: How to beat the odds of disaster. The Journal of Business Strategy, 28(1), 53-56. doi:10.1108/02756660710723215 Foos, F., Schum, G., & Rothenberg, S. (2006). Tacit knowledge transfer and the knowledge disconnect. Journal of Knowledge Management, 10(1), 6-18. doi:10.1108/13673270610650067 54
    • 55. References Galpin, T. J. & Herndon, M. (2007). The complete guide to mergers & acquisitions: Process tolls to support M&A integrations at every level. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Ghauri, P. & Gronhaug, K. (2005). Research methods in business studies (3rd ed.). Harlow, England: Pearson Education. Girdauskiené, L. & Savaneviciené, A. (2007, October). Influence of knowledge culture on effective knowledge transfer. Engineering Economics, 54(4), 36-43. Gopinath, C. (2003). When acquisitions go awry: Pitfalls in executing corporate strategy. Journal of Business Strategy, 24(5), 22-26. doi:10.1108/02756660310504933 Holl, P. & Pickering, J. F. (1991). Takeovers and other influences on economic performance: A plant level analysis. Applied Economics, 23(11), 1779-1788. doi:10.1080/00036849100000073 Inkpen, A. C. (2008, March). Managing knowledge transfer in international alliances. Thunderbird International Business Review, 50(2), 77-90. doi:10.1002/tie.20180 Junni, P. (2007, October). Knowledge transfer in mergers and acquisitions: The roles of fear of exploitation and contamination. Retrieved from http://sandiego.strategicmanagement.net/handouts/0dfad03b407ab17112a 42084ce525c97SMS%202-page%20handout%20-%20Junni.pdf 55
    • 56. References Lajoux, A. R. (2006). The art of M&A integration: A guide to merging resources, processes, and responsibilities (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill. Langdridge, D. (2007). Phenomenological psychology: Theory, research and method. Harlow, England: Pearson Education. Mathew, V. & Kavitha, M. (2008, July). The critical knowledge transfer in an organization: Approaches. ICFAI Journal of Knowledge Management, 6(4), 25-39. McCaskey, M. B. (1982). The executive challenge: Managing change and ambiguity. Marshfield, MA: Pitman. Moeller, S. & Brady, C. (2007). Intelligent M&A: Navigating the mergers and acquisitions minefield. West Sussex, England: John Wiley. Moitra, D. & Kumar, K. (2007, July). Managed socialization: How smart companies leverage global knowledge. Knowledge & Process Management, 14(3), 148-157. doi:10.1002/kpm.278 Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Parkes, A., Hasegawa, M., & Manjunatha, R. (4-8-2010). Merger and acquisition data validation. 12/247290. Ref Type: Patent 56
    • 57. References Pritchett, P., Robinson, D., & Clarkson, R. (1997). After the merger: The authoritative guide for integration success (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Riege, A. (2007). Actions to overcome knowledge transfer barriers in MNCs. Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(1), 48-67. doi:10.1108/13673270710728231 Schleimer, S. & Riege, A. (2009). Knowledge transfer between globally dispersed units at BMW. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(1), 27-41. doi:10.1108/13673270910931143 Schmidt, J. A. (2002). Making mergers work - The strategic importance of people. Alexandria, VA: Towers Perrin. Sherman, A. J. & Hart, M. A. (2006). Mergers & Acquisitions from A to Z (2nd ed.). New York, NY: AMACOM. Sitkin, S. B. & Pablo, A. L. (2004). Leadership and the M&A process. In A. L. Pablo & M. Javidan (Eds.), Mergers and acquisitions: Creating integrative knowledge ( Malden, MA: Blackwell. Smith, J. A., Flowers, P., & Larkin, M. (2009). Interpretative phenomenological analysis: Theory, method and research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Stahl, G. K. & Mendenhall, M. E. (2005). Mergers and acquisitions: Managing culture and human resources. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. 57
    • 58. References Stahl, G. K., Mendenhall, M. E., & Weber, Y. (2005). Research on sociocultural integration in mergers and acquisitions: Points of agreement, paradoxes, and avenues for future research. In G. K. Stahl & M. E. Mendenhall (Eds.), Mergers and acquisitions: Managing culture and human resources (pp. 401-411). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Szulanski, G. (1996, Winter). Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(Winter Special Issue), 27-43. Taylor, W. (1991, March). The logic of global business: An interview with ABB's Percy Barnevik. Harvard Business Review, 69(2), 90-105. doi:Interview Vlaar, P. W. L., Van den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2006). Coping with problems of understanding in interorganizational relationships: Using formalization as a means to make sense. Organization Studies, 27(11), 1617-1638. doi:10.1177/0170840606068338 Wenger, E., White, N., & Smith, J. D. (2009). Digital habitats: Stewarding technology for communities. Portland, OR: CPsquare. Windsor, D. (2003). Change management competencies for creating collaborative organizations. In M. Beyerlein (Ed.), Advances in interdisciplinary studies of work teams (pp. 31-65). Oxford, England: Emerald. Youngjin, Y., Lyytinen, K., & Heo, D. (2007, October). Closing the gap: Towards a process model of post-merger knowledge sharing. Information Systems Journal, 17(4), 321-347. Zollo, M. & Meier, D. (2008, August). What is M&A performance? Academy of Management Perspectives, 22(3), 55-77. 58
    • 59. Backup Materials & Printer Friendly Graphics 59
    • 60. The Four Dimensions Knowledge Transfer M&A Integrations Phenomenology U. S. Enterprise Software Industry 60
    • 61. Findings (Saturation Graphic) 61 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% %Cumulativenewmeaningunits %Newmeaningunits
    • 62. Findings (Saturation Graphic) 62 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% %Cumulativenewmeaningunits %Newmeaningunits
    • 63. Methodology and Design 63
    • 64. Findings Overview Category Theme Sources Percenta References Percentb M&A 1. M&A Integrations 22 100% 407 21% Knowledge Management 2. Communication 22 100% 442 23% 3. Knowledge Transfer 21 95% 180 9% 4. Lost Knowledge 21 95% 95 5% 5. Information Ambiguity 18 82% 60 3% Organizational 6. Management 22 100% 227 12% 7. Organizational Culture 22 100% 189 10% 8. Information Systems 21 95% 164 8% Personal 9. Trust 20 91% 97 5% 10. Feelings 19 86% 97 5% Total 22 100% 1958 100% 64Note. aRepresents the number of participants compared to the whole sample (n=22); bRepresents the number of references compared to all the references within this category (n=1958).
    • 65. 10 Core Themes by Importance 65 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 21% 40% 30% 10% M&A Knowledge Transfer Organizational Personal
    • 66. 66
    • 67. Methodology 67
    • 68. Research Interconnectedness 68 Chapter 1 Purpose Research Question Chapter 2 Literature Review Chapter 3 Research Approach Chapter 4 22 Interviews 10 Themes 1958 References Conclusions Implications for Companies Implications for Leaders Recommendati ons
    • 69. Data Analysis Process • 10-step method combines - Moustakas (1994) based on his modified • Stevick-Colaizzi-Keen methoda • van Kaam methodb - Langdridge (2007) method - Smith, Flowers, and Larkin (2009) method 69aStevick (1971), Colaizzi (1973), and Keen (1975); bvan Kaam
    • 70. 10-Step Approach 1. Conduct researcher self-description of the phenomenon (Moustakas, 1994). 2. Identify suppressed or omitted data points (Langdridge, 2007; Smith et al., 2009). 3. Create meaning units (Moustakas, 1994). 4. Eliminate repetitive, overlapping meaning units (Moustakas, 1994). 5. Cluster meaning units into themes (Moustakas, 1994). 70
    • 71. 10-Step Approach 6. Repeat steps 1-5 for all participants. 7. Fine-tune and reorganize overarching meaning units and themes (Langdridge, 2007; Moustakas, 1994). 8. Add verbatim text examples (Moustakas, 1994). 9. Compose the essence of the experience (Moustakas, 1994). 10.Reflect on the process (Moustakas, 1994). 71

    ×