CRISP™ 8-Baking In Accountability

Recap and Intro

So far, the M&A execution topics covered in this series have been:

1. Individual contributors are the key to success
2. M&A transactions are complicated, but with known parameters
3. Miscommunication is the largest single contributor to execution issues
4. Classic approaches are not communication-centric
5. Accountability, clarity and efficiency (ACE) are necessary for trouble-free execution
6. The CRISP™ Method embeds ACE using its Nexus Point approach
7. IMO Role and Challenges

Today’s post dives deeper into Accountability and two other must have behaviors and how they shouldn’t be an afterthought or considered a given when executing M&A transactions.

 Accountability: what is it?

Being accountable generally means making an obligation to accept responsibility or to account for one’s actions. Where executing M&A initiatives are concerned, accountability affects every individual working on the deal, from the C-suite to HR analysts and all roles in between.

There is nothing revelatory in this concept. But the reality is that while organizations define positional accountability from an HR perspective, few take the time to formally codify it as a critical part of M&A initiatives at the deliverable level. Note: tasks on plans infer accountability, when they are assigned, but do not go far enough in establishing that they are accurate in all the dimensions accountability covers. If you have task–based plans that look like this:

1. tasks with no resources
2. task resources listed as TBD
3. tasks that were arbitrarily assigned
4. tasks assigned to groups or teams

there’s a good chance accountability issues are lurking nearby.

Following the CRISP™ Method, accountability (and responsibility) are baked in, rather than added on. This takes place at several deliberate points during the execution process and are accurately reflected in the Nexus Point Exchange (NPX). CRISP™ protocols are very specific with respect to who is responsible and accountable in order to achieve an optimized transaction.

 A Framework for Accountability, Commitment, and Trust

Traditional accountability policy follows organizational reporting structures. When something goes wrong or is late, the boss is the one most likely burdened with taking remedial action, even though the boss may not be directly involved with anything to do with the transaction. If there is no urgency and the reporting lines are clear, this less-than-optimum design can work.

But in fast-paced M&A transactions, an issue waiting hours, days or weeks for the intervening action of a manager is not an acceptable time frame. That is why CRISP™ approaches accountability by including commitment and trust as behavioral must-haves for all contributors to ensure consistent, reliable execution. Bosses are still needed to provide proper guidance and, if necessary discipline. Just not in the historical, monolithic context.

Accountability, Commitment and Trust (ACT) means that:

• Contributors are Accountable for producing or consuming deliverables which require a
• Commitment to the process used to identify and exchange those deliverables, which is based on
• Trust that consumers have adequately communicated their needs, and producers will deliver what and when they say they will.

A breakdown or disconnect with any of these items will naturally lead to issues that will retard progress and create extra effort by multiple parties to resolve.

Transparent Tracking and Real-Time Visibility

CRISP™ delivery protocols are very clear: accountability for poor performance within work-streams falls squarely within the confines of the manager-employee-department dynamic. If certain departments or individuals are known to be problematic with late, incomplete or unacceptable internal deliveries, then it is up to those organizations internally to fix the problems. This should not be part of the remit of the IMO and can not typically be optimized in the context of an initiative.

On the other hand, when issues arise between work-streams or entities, CRISP™ mandates that the IMO is accountable for facilitating a fix. From a tracking perspective, it easily does this by using the NPX as the source of truth to determine who is responsible (or ultimately accountable) for the deliverables in dispute.

Let’s look at two actual cases:

Case 1: A deliverable is late when the NPX promise date passes with no Nexus Point Content present. The time-optimized CRISP™ protocol on handling late deliverables is straightforward: as soon as the promise date is missed the NPX record is immediately escalated by the IMO to the specified work-stream lead for remediation; no other communication is necessary. Hint: it is a good idea to put the escalation on the next appropriate work-stream lead meeting agenda if it is not resolved by then.

Of course, work-stream leads have access to the NPX and can see all their producer’s deliverables and the related key metadata just as easily as the IMO can. Using their unique knowledge of the personnel and functional area, they can decide the best and fastest way to handle the delay without necessarily burdening the IMO. Ideally, they should take action ahead of the missed delivery, but that is not always the situation.

Case 2: A consumer complains to the IMO (or their work-stream lead) that they can’t complete their work because deliverables haven’t been forthcoming. The IMO checks the NPX for the specific deliverables in question. If no NPX records are found, CRISP™ protocols strongly suggest that a protocol review discussions with the work-stream lead and consumer be conducted ASAP.

The reason for the urgency (beyond the obvious issue) is that the CRISP™ requirement designed to ensure all cross-functional/cross-entity deliverables go through a structured vetting process didn’t happen. The protocol also suggests this session is also when ACT should be reintroduced, to make sure there is alignment on the concept.

Providing a centralized repository of Nexus Point Content available to all contributors allows for total cross-functional/cross-entity transparency for the entire initiative.

Impact of Accountability on Integration Success

When contributors embrace the ACT model, what were once disjointed and disconnected notions of who is doing what, become a unifying concept.

If I am a producer and trust that what I need to deliver has been articulated and vetted by the consumers who need it, being blind-sided by last minute requests becomes a rare occurrence rather than an expected event.

Likewise, if I am a consumer and commit to voicing exactly what I need to do my part and confident as to when those things will be available, being accountable is easy.

And if I am an IMO resource who is committed to the process, I am no longer spending my time chasing deliverables and attempting to influence contributors to do what’s been defined, full-stop.

Taken together, Accountability, Commitment and Trust form the foundation to move the initiative along as quickly as possible with minimum disruptions caused by miscommunication. And when things do go wrong (you know they will), ACT is buttressed by the NPX for fact-based discussions vs those based on conjecture and supposition.

Each contributor doing their part is critical. Optimizing resource allocation against a backdrop of complicated interdependencies starts with a firm understanding of how deliverables are distributed across the folks doing the work. CRISP™ makes it easy without resorting to time consuming and error-prone CPM or PERT estimates and analysis. Learn how in the next post.

Thanks for reading! If this post has sparked any new ideas or questions about how to optimize your M&A integrations, I invite you to join one of my live intro sessions. Each session is 30 minutes and limited to 2 participants for an interactive, in-depth look at how the CRISP™ method can make your next integration faster, better, and more efficient.

📅 Register here -> CRISP™ Intro Sessions
✉️ Want to stay updated on future posts and sessions? Opt-in for exclusive updates: CRISP™ site

Let’s continue the conversation and dive deeper into a transformative approach to successful M&A execution!

CRISP™ is a pending trademark of Exertus, Inc.