Clean Core Strategy versus Legacy Parity in M&A-Driven SAP Carve-Ins

Successful post-merger outcomes rely heavily on SAP carve-in transactions. It’s critical that firms make the right SAP-related architectural decisions when implementing carve-ins. Specifically, decisions should be made in regard to whether to pursue a clean core and standardization efforts versus replicating the way things are currently done. A successful and sustainable carve-in requires a holistic approach that considers the entire lifecycle of the carve-in transaction, not merely the SAP/IT aspect of the transaction. This includes assessing each element of the IS individually to identify components to standardize (improve efficiency) or customize (drive differentiation), as well as rethinking the architecture to ensure SAP solutions are built to drive the business beyond simply connecting/aligning the technology. Identifying key areas of focus early in the process allows integrating firms to mitigate risks around business disruption while realizing expected benefits from the merger. Aligning SAP architecture and governance decisions and customizations to broader organizational/enterprise strategies with clear and concise objectives allows integrating firms to use SAP carve-ins to improve overall organizational capabilities, build a solid foundation to achieve expected benefits from M&A activity, and build a platform for future success, including scalability and competitive advantage.

Alaranta, M. (2005). Managing the change process of the post-merger enterprise systems integration: a case study. International Journal of Information Systems and Change Management, 1(1), 62. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijiscm.2006.008287 Antero, M. (2015). A Multi-case Analysis of the Development of Enterprise Resource Planning Systems (ERP) Business Practices. Econstor (Econstor). http://hdl.handle.net/10419/208924 Böhm, M., Henningsson, S., Leimeister, J. M., Yetton, P., & Krcmar, H. (2011). A Dual View on IT Challenges in Corporate Divestments and Acquisitions. OpenArchive@CBS (Copenhagen Business School), 3801–3819. http://hdl.handle.net/10398/8631 Dudas, M., & Tobisson, P. (2007). Information Systems Integration in Mergers and Acquisitions. Lund University Publications Student Papers (Lund University). http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/1334790 Henningsson, S., & Carlsson, S. (2011). The DySIIM model for managing IS integration in mergers and acquisitions. Information Systems Journal, 21(5), 441–476. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2575.2011.00374.x Rahimi, F., Møller, C., & Hvam, L. (2016). Succeeding in process standardization. Business Process Management Journal, 22(6), 1212–1246. https://doi.org/10.1108/bpmj-12-2015-0180 Rothenberger, M. A., & Srite, M. (2009). An Investigation of Customization in ERP System Implementations. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 56(4), 663–676. https://doi.org/10.1109/tem.2009.2028319 Steigenberger, N. (2016). The Challenge of Integration: A Review of the M&A Integration Literature. International Journal of Management Reviews, 19(4), 408–431. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12099 Tanriverdi̇, H., & Uysal, V. B. (2013). When IT capabilities are not scale-free in merger and acquisition integrations: how do capital markets react to IT capability asymmetries between acquirer and target? European Journal of Information Systems, 24(2), 145–158. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2013.22 Toppenberg, G. (2015). Innovation-based M&A: Technological-Integration Challenges – The Case of Digital-Technology Companies. Econstor (Econstor). http://hdl.handle.net/10419/208942 Wynne, P. J., & Henningsson, S. (2018). The Paradox of Post-Acquisition IS Integration Preparation: Preparing Under Incomplete Information. 50–59. https://doi.org/10.1109/cbi.2018.00015