Realising efficiencies post-merger

Written by Rhiannon Gibbs

Mergers seem to be particularly rife at the moment, and there are many drivers for doing them, from financial challenges, or a need for financial recovery, to delivering a bigger and more rounded customer offering, and everything in-between.

One thing that the majority of mergers have in common is the expectation of efficiencies. Someone expects to see these efficiencies on your bottom-line at some time in the near future.?It will undoubtedly have been part of your initial business case for merging.

Our position is that efficiencies should never be the primary reason for merging, in fact, it can be a bit of a false economy. We know that all organisations can make efficiency savings whether they merge or not.?(If at this point you’re thinking, ”that’s bull,” then invite us to do a free of charge ROI assessment for you, and we will do the analysis to show you what savings and improvements are there for the taking. But anyway, back to my point…)

Whether you merge or not, if you want to realise efficiencies the right way (the wrong way is just to cut numbers and pray for the best), then you need to review your services and their respective processes one by one. The good news is that you can upskill some inhouse resource in how to do this so that you can take control of the project. It’s not an overnight task, but by tackling it in a logical order you can start realising efficiencies very quickly.

We recently shared this diagram with our mailing list subscribers which gives you the gist of how to approach this seemingly monumental challenge.??

The cherry on top is that by approaching the task this way, your services will not only be more efficient and cheaper to deliver, but they will also deliver a better customer experience and more customer value! Who doesn’t want that?!?

We can help you to make this happen, from creating the plan, to upskilling your inhouse team, and supporting the first few projects.?Drop us an email to get started at [email protected].??