Recap and Intro
In M&A initiatives, articulated high-level strategies often overshadow the behind-the-scene efforts required to bring these transactions to fruition. Previous posts have emphasized that while leaders chart the course, individual contributors—the ones performing the pre and post-integration work—are the critical foundation to success.
These contributors face challenges not rooted in complexity, but in the communication gaps and inefficiencies inherent in classic integration methods and tools. From planned unnecessary meetings to ad hoc redundant data requests, miscommunication of all types creates noise for the contributors, causing delays, added cost, frustration and often outright failure.
The CRISP™ Method rethinks M&A activities with a communication-centric approach. CRISP™ is an acronym for Colleague Responsibility Information System and Protocols. As the acronym suggests, by focusing on accountability, clarity, and efficiency, the exchange of crucial information is streamlined and optimized.
Rather than using hierarchical task management or free-form collaboration, CRISP™ uses the precise timing and coordination of individual deliverables, ensuring contributors receive what they need exactly when they need it. The approach transforms M&A execution by eliminating distractions and fostering a collaborative, efficient environment.
The Nexus Point Concept
Taking a communication-centric approach does not mean all communication is created equal or warrants specific attention at the IMO or program level. On the contrary, it means concentrating only on those messages and deliverables where the potential for miscommunication is high and the chances for failure are the greatest. If we assume contributors know what they need to do within the confines of their subject matter expertise and related work-streams, the need to monitor, control or even know about those “in-group” deliverables and messages is not necessary.
What is necessary is managing the cross-functional and cross-entity deliverable exchanges that happen between and among the contributors working on the initiative; “Colleagues” in CRISP™-speak. History and your own experience will validate this is always where the greatest risk resides. The CRISP™ Method has a specific name for describing these exchanges: “Nexus Points” (NPs).
An NP is where a single Colleague (in CRISP™-speak, “Producer”) is responsible for creating content (“Nexus Point Content”, or NPC) in the form of deliverables that are received or consumed by one or more other Colleagues (in CRISP™-speak, “Consumers”), who are not in their work-stream or organization.
Here are two common examples of what this looks like:
- In a US-based spin-off or carve-out where a new entity will be formed, a Federal Employment Identification Number is needed for the new company.
- A Producer, operating within Finance or Legal work-streams is usually responsible for obtaining that number.
- Various Consumers from IT, HR, or Risk Management, need that number to do their work.
- Since one or more Consumers outside the Producer’s work-stream need the deliverable, an NP is established.
- The NPC is a single tax id value.
- In transactions where the transitioning of employees is part of the deal, a list of those people is needed.
- Most often, a Producer from an organization’s HR work-stream is responsible for creating and updating the list.
- Minimally Consumers in IT, Payroll and Operations use that list for their work.
- Since one or more Consumers outside the Producer’s work-stream need the deliverable, a NP is established.
- The NPC consists of a hyper-link to the list.
It should be mentioned that multiple ways of protecting NPs containing sensitive data are part of the CRISP™ Method.
Real-Time Visibility and Timeliness
The collection of all NPs are housed in what CRISP™ calls the “Nexus Point Exchange” (NPX) for ready access and availability to any Consumer who needs them. On an atomic-level, this structure provides real-time visibility into precisely what is being delivered and by whom. But CRISP™ also has a rule that a negotiated promise date be established between the Producer and any/all Consumers of the NPC. Why is the promise date “negotiated” and not specified?
Planned negotiation ensures both the Producers’ and Consumers’ explicit knowledge of their individual workloads relative to the constraints/milestones of the initiative are considered. Following the CRISP™ protocols governing this negotiation (and the population of the NPX) eliminate last-minute scrambles, performance ambiguity, and misalignment gaps, early in the initiative’s timeline.
Preventing Delays Through Targeted Communication
By intentionally limiting the deliverables (NPs) only to those requiring cross-functional or cross-entity exchanges a number of things happen:
- The need for inefficient, time consuming and often difficult to schedule joint requirements gathering sessions and their associated documentation disappears.
- The same can be said of multiple joint group-alignment meetings: alignment comes from the date constraints defined in the Purchase and Sale and, if appropriate, Transition Service Agreements, and reflected as NPs.
- Multiple sources of truth are eliminated and a common, ready-reference becomes available.
With a high-level of visibility at a very granular level available to everyone, adopting this approach dramatically reduces the opportunities for miscommunication and the issues it creates.
The Impact of Right-Time Talent Allocation on Efficiency
Key concept: CRISP™ intentionally leverages the individual self-interest of Producers and Consumers to minimize disruption to their respective workloads. This leverage creates a self-defining, right-time allocation network whose properties are reflected in the NPX.
Put another way, as a Consumer, knowing all the items you need coming from outside your work-stream, when and where they will be delivered and by whom, enables flexibility to optimize your work. Likewise, as a Producer, precisely knowing what you have to deliver and where, who is depending on you and when, provides flexibility to optimize your work as well.
There are always exceptions, but organized in this way, time previously spent on determining and separately documenting and updating timing, dependencies and interrelationships can be eliminated. It also exposes for resolution, unrealistic issues around allocation and deliverable timing. This allows all Colleagues to concentrate on getting work done, full-stop.
Conclusion
By providing a way to efficiently and effectively align cross-functional/cross-entity Producers and Consumers through protocols and a key artifact, CRISP™ ensures that every Colleague’s critical information needs are accounted for and accessible when they are needed.
In the next post you will see how IMOs can use CRISP™ to their advantage. Discover new insights into how transactions can be effectively managed without adding new technology or the heroic efforts of IMO staff.
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.
