The synergy tracking gap: why the phase that matters most gets measured least

Synergy tracking is how buy-side teams measure whether an acquisition delivers the value it was bought for — turning the deal thesis into a defined set of initiatives, each with a named owner, a baseline, and a consistent formula. It's also the phase of the deal lifecycle most teams measure least.

Back in the spring, we ran two polls during our webinar on the KPIs every buy-side team should be tracking. The first asked which part of the deal lifecycle participants' teams measured least rigorously. Post-close value realization won comfortably, with 69% of the vote, ahead of sourcing and pipeline and well ahead of execution and closing. The second poll asked what our audience wanted us to cover next. They chose metrics for execution and closing.

So, in the space of a few minutes, our audience told us two things: post-close value realization is the area they measure least rigorously, but execution and closing is the area they'd most like to spend time on.

At first glance, those answers seem to point in different directions. But the more we've thought about them, the more they make sense. The difference may have less to do with what buy-side teams care about and more to do with what feels possible to tackle.

Is execution and closing easier to measure than post-close?

Ask a corp dev lead to improve how they measure deal execution and they probably know roughly where to start. There's a stage gate model. There's a close date. There's a diligence checklist with owners and dates attached, and metrics like cycle time, LOI-to-close conversion, cost per deal that sit on top of processes that already exist. Improving the measurement is largely a matter of making an established process more visible and consistent.

Start talking about measuring M&A synergies after close, and the questions multiply quickly. Where does the number come from? Who owns it now that the deal team has moved on? What's the baseline — the model at signing, the revised case at close, or the budget the business unit is actually running to? How do you distinguish value created by the acquisition from changes in the wider market or business? None of those questions is impossible to answer. But answering them usually requires decisions across multiple teams, systems, and owners.

One thing we've noticed in conversations with buy-side organizations is that there isn't necessarily a mature synergy-tracking program sitting in the background waiting to be optimized.

That's a very different proposition from tightening up an existing KPI.

We've written before about the structural side of this problem — how deal data scatters across systems and owners the moment a deal closes. That's one reason post-close reporting can remain perpetually "on the list" without ever becoming part of a regular management dashboard. The poll results highlight the same challenge from another angle: the hardest part is not knowing that synergy measurement matters, but knowing where to start.

What does synergy tracking actually require?

Probably less than you'd expect. A practical first version starts with the strategic objectives behind the deal and translates them into a manageable set of initiatives.

What was the acqueition supposed to accomplish? Which of those outcomes have measurable value? Who is responsible for delivering them? From there, a useful synergy tracker needs a few fundamentals:

• A clear definition of each initiative and the value it is expected to create
• A named owner who is accountable for progress
• A consistent measurement formula so everyone understands how the number is calculated
• A baseline against which progress can be assessed
• A reporting cadence that keeps the information current
• A clear purpose for each metric — what decision should it help someone make?

The last point is particularly important. A tracker doesn't become useful because it contains more KPIs. It becomes useful when the information helps someone spot a problem, make a decision, or take action.

Another important note: you don't need specialized software to build the first version. A spreadsheet can be enough to establish the definitions, ownership, and measurement approach. Technology becomes increasingly useful as deal volume grows, data changes frequently, and more people need access to the same source of truth. But software doesn't have to be the first hurdle.

How to start tracking synergies: a working session

Our third KPI webinar session was originally going to be another set of best practices in an easily digestible format. Instead, we're making it a working session.

On September 23, Vil Audinis and AP McColgan will walk through the practical side of synergy tracking and post-close value realization: what to define, what to measure first, what can wait, and what a workable first version actually looks like.

We'll also get into the questions that tend to come up once you start building one.

If you're not tracking synergies today, the goal is to help you leave with a clearer idea of how to get started without turning it into a major project.

If you already have a process, the goal is to give you a chance to compare your approach with another way of thinking about synergy measurement and see where you might be able to sharpen your tools.

And if you were one of the people in April who chose execution and closing over post-close value realization, that's an instinct this session is built to address.

‍

‍