The Synergy Target and the Nine-Month Deadline
Following its acquisition of a direct competitor, Halden Group has committed to US$30M of synergies in 24 months, US$12M of it from supply chain: freight, footprint and procurement scale. The two distribution centers are 40 miles apart, both leased with penalty clauses, and combined SKU overlap is 62%. Each company still runs its own planning team and forecast. Customer contracts carry service-level penalties on delivery windows, and the acquired firm's single largest customer competes directly with Halden. The integration office wants to close one DC within nine months to bank the footprint synergy and is asking for board approval at the next meeting.
1. How should the US$12M supply chain synergy be tested before the board approves the DC closure?
Read the worked answer
Decompose the number and test each component separately; a blended synergy figure hides which parts are achievable and when.
- Procurement scale. Usually the fastest and safest synergy, limited only by contract terms, supplier consent and antitrust constraints. Test by category, with a contracting calendar.
- Freight. Achievable through lane consolidation and network redesign, but only after volume is visible in one place. Test with a lane-level model, not a percentage.
- Footprint. The largest and slowest. A DC closure yields savings only after volume transfer is physically complete, systems and inventory cutover are done, and the lease is exited or sublet. Add lease penalties and dual-running cost during transition. On a nine-month timeline the realistic saving is a partial-year number, not a full run rate.
The revenue test is decisive. The largest acquired customer competes with Halden. Consolidating stock and service for that customer into Halden's network risks the account, and service-level penalties apply while service is disturbed. If the at-risk revenue exceeds the discounted footprint synergy, the closure is value-destructive regardless of the synergy target.
Recommendation: validate the US$12M as a schedule of components with confidence and timing; present footprint as conditional on a service and customer-retention test.
2. What should be done first, what should wait, and what should the trigger for the footprint decision be?
Read the worked answer
Sequence by reversibility and by dependency.
Do now - no-regret, reversible:
- Procurement scale on uncontested categories; renegotiate at the first contracting window.
- Freight lane consolidation and carrier rate harmonization where the two networks already overlap.
- Stabilize service: keep both networks running, protect the at-risk customer with a named executive sponsor and a service guarantee through the transition.
- One forecast and one planning cadence, even before systems merge, because everything downstream depends on a shared demand signal.
Do later:
- DC closure, inventory relocation and systems cutover. These are irreversible and mid-flight failure is visible to customers.
Explicit trigger for the footprint decision, agreed now: two consecutive quarters of OTIF at or above the pre-deal baseline and the contracted target, retention of the at-risk account confirmed in writing, and a signed lease exit or sublet at or below modelled cost. If the trigger is not met in nine months, the closure moves out; the remaining synergy gap is covered from procurement and freight.
This gives the board a decision it can approve without betting customer relationships on a synergy schedule.
3. What governance arrangement keeps the integration moving without stalling on two planning teams and two sets of decision rights?
Read the worked answer
Integration fails more often from unclear decision rights than from bad plans.
- One accountable integration lead with real authority over both supply chains, reporting to the executive committee. A coordination committee without decision rights will defer every contested call to a meeting that never resolves it.
- Decision rights table by domain: who decides, who is consulted, who is informed for forecasting, network, procurement, customer service and systems. Ambiguity here produces duplicate forecasts and shadow systems that outlive the integration.
- Day-1 versus Day-2 separation. Day-1 is service continuity, customer retention and pay continuity; no structural change is approved during it beyond the no-regret set.
- A single synergy register with line owners, monthly realization reporting by component, and the counterfactual stated. Do not let functional leaders report gross savings while expedite and dual-running costs sit elsewhere.
- Retention for the scarce people. Integration is executed by the acquired firm's planners and contract specialists; unmanaged attrition is the most common cause of a missed schedule.
- Escalation rule with a clock: contested decisions escalate automatically after a set number of days, so silence cannot masquerade as agreement.
- Board reporting on three numbers only: synergy realized, service performance, customer retention.