CRISP™ 9-Easy Resource Allocation?

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
8. Baked in accountability

This week’s post explains that where individual contributors are concerned, especially for peri and post-close periods, resource allocation can be a challenge. This is especially true when over-loading people to perform initiative-related tasks in addition to their “day jobs” is the standard operating model. But there is a way to turn the challenge into a value-added activity where the sum of the effort is greater than the parts.

The Current Approach

Resource allocation in M&A transactions varies widely depending on organizations’ maturity, available tools and available labor. Manual tracking and spreadsheets, while common and low-cost, can be inefficient and prone to errors primarily due to lack of coherent document management controls. Project management software potentially improves coordination for some, and visibility for fewer still. Custom databases and M&A-specific platforms offer scalability and tailored solutions but come with higher costs, complexity and on-going maintenance.

Continuing the list: emerging technologies like AI, in theory provide the greatest efficiency by automating and optimizing allocations, though the initial investment is significant and data prep daunting. External consultants add expertise but at a premium cost and with a different agenda.

Today, choosing the “right” technique often depends on the size of the transaction, the frequency of deals, and the organization’s resources. For large-scale M&A with budgets and history to advise action, advanced platforms or AI tools are more efficient in the long term. Smaller organizations may find simpler tools or consultant-led processes more practical.

The Common Bond

Regardless of the technique in play, most of the steps to put it into use require varying levels of functional, cross-functional, and cross-entity interaction, initiative administrative action and input by the actual people who are doing the work; all separate from actually doing the work.

Getting to the place where understanding what needs to be done, how long it will take, and who will be doing it also follow many paths: some organizations rely on informal communication and individual expertise, others use structured methodologies or software tools, and a rare few (primarily top tier consultancies) leverage advanced analytics and AI to predict and optimize workflows.

Without exception it all starts (and ends) with data.

Typically data is collected through live group sessions where the goal is to identify as many requirements and dependencies as possible and then record them using the tools at hand. Think of a pull-planning wall of post-it notes. Frequently these sessions are multi-day events and work-stream focused.

But when you think about optimizing information exchange between contributors, these sessions can be grossly inefficient for the majority of participants where “all hands” participation is mandated. The reason? Most Individuals need a fraction of the information discussed to do their parts. The rest of the material is of little to no relevance. You can easily test this by performing a post session survey to measure the perceived “signal-to-noise” ratio of directly usable data vs not relevant for each attendee.

Another exchange impediment is the reliance on 2nd or 3rd hand information. This happens when supervisors or managers step in as proxies for the actual performers, and then pass the information down the chain of command. This process introduces significant noise and ultimately delay as questions and confusion inevitably occur.

A New Approach

CRISP™ facilitates efficient resource allocation by ensuring that contributors receive what they need, when they need it. The Method does this by leveraging the fact that contributors will generally act in their own self-interest to perform their jobs. They know, better than anyone, what their workloads are and what the additional initiative work will mean, for them personally.

The CRISP™ Tactical Field Guide Protocols explain how to channel this behavior into embedded content meta data: specifically, mutually and formally agreed to deliverables and dates.

Once this happens, a clear picture emerges. Not just of who is delivering what and who needs it, but how they align time-wise, relative to the established milestones. In other words, by following the CRISP™ Method, a dependency network is represented without having to identify or document a single predecessor, successor, or duration. But that’s not all.

Because of how the Method structures the communication exchange to collect the data, the following happens automatically, in parallel:

1. Alignment on milestones.
2. Consumers acknowledge Producers’ commitment to deliver the items they need when they need them so they have them in time to do their work.
3. Producers know exactly who will be using their deliverables, what they need to look like, and when they need them.
4. Resource loading visibility is exposed.
5. Impact scores can be calculated and used for analysis and prioritization. An Impact Score is a CRISP™ numerical calculation based on the Nexus Point Exchange (NPX) data.
6. Inefficient time spent in group sessions is reduced or eliminated.

And because this critical data is designed to be self-service and self-maintaining, the system allows the contributors to individually adjust allocation to meet shared understandings with automatic consideration of any dependencies. No intermediaries needed.

Resource Allocation Is Squishy, Until It’s Not

CRISP™ recognizes that during the arc of a transaction, lots of required data covering multiple dimensions is in various states of readiness. So too are personnel assignments for Producers and Consumers, creating potential gaps or overlaps. The Method anticipates that disagreements and conflicts around these topics will arise during the alignment process and offers a number of resolution techniques. This is the squishy part.

To firm things up, the Method both exposes disconnects and captures the mitigations in the same place, the NPX. As the data in the NPX solidifies by following the relevant CRISP™ Protocols, the squishiness is squeezed out. What’s left is a sound foundation of milestone-compliant, actionable data, as efficiently allocated as the contributors can manage.

Summary

Following the CRISP™ Method, puts resource allocation squarely in control of those who are closest to performing the work, individual contributors. It relieves the IMO (and contributors) from having to create and maintain immediately outdated task and dependency plans from which, by definition, questionable resource allocation decisions are often made. Plus, in addition to the ancillary benefits, the Method provides a built-in jumping off point for the next transaction.

Adopting CRISP™ to optimize not only the exchange of critical information but the labor required to carry out the initiative lays the foundation for what the Method calls High Fidelity Observation (HFO). HFO provides the ability to quickly and easily see what is happening (or not), not only by the IMO but everyone working on the transaction.  In the next post, see how CRISP™ uses this capability to permit effortless horizontal and vertical scaling no matter what size or type of transaction is underway.

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.