One definition of a customer
One set of stages, one meaning per metric, one pipeline the board can read. Until then the combined number describes neither company.
Who we helpPost-acquisition
Two commercial systems, one company, and a synergy case that assumed they were one system.
The organisation chart merged. The stages, the pricing, the incentives and the account ownership did not. The customer meets the seam, and the cross-sell that was signed for does not appear.
Stage read
The seam is at the customer, not in the org chart.
- 01
Two definitions of a customer
Two pipelines, two sets of stage names, one report that adds them up.
- 02
Ownership settled case by case
Where both sides sold to the same account, whoever argues best owns it this quarter.
- 03
Incentives that still pay for the old motion
Each plan rewards its own product; the cross-sell is nobody's number.
- 04
An integration plan without an operating model
Systems, brand and reporting lines merge; how a deal moves does not.
- 05
The target arrives before the handoff
The synergy number is in the board pack before the route to it exists.
Joined at the top
The organisation merged. The commercial system did not.
Two operating models kept whole and wired together above them. The synergy was counted at signing; the hidden cost is paid monthly, where no integration report looks.
The symptom is reported at the surface. The cause sits underneath it.
- 01 · Surface · what gets reported
Cross-sell is the plan and the pipeline shows none
The synergy case was signed; the joint deals have not appeared.
- 02 · Structure · what produces it
Two operating models kept whole, wired together at the top
Each side keeps its stages, its pricing and its incentives; only the org chart merged.
- 03 · System · where it breaks
The account owner is decided case by case
Where both sides sold to the same customer, nobody settled who owns the relationship.
- 04 · Consequence · what it costs
Synergy counted at signing, hidden cost paid monthly
Rework, lost accounts and the deals never worked land where no integration report looks.
Cause and consequence rarely surface in the same place.
What it looks for here
Read both motions before a third one hardens by accident.
The diagnostic tests all six dysfunction families without assuming the seam is where the deal announced it. It maps the two motions where they meet the same customer, compares stage definitions, pricing rules, account ownership, incentive plans and handoffs, and prices the gap between them at the combined company's own rates.
- Account ownership rules across the overlap
- Stage and pipeline definitions, both sides
- Pricing, deal desk and approval paths
- Incentive plans against the cross-sell target
- CRM merge and what the combined report can and cannot say
- Integration governance and who decides
An acquisition changes where the strain sits: it moves to the seam between two working systems.
What the next stage demands
One operating model, decided by evidence rather than by who acquired whom.
The combined company gets a target and a chart. What the next stage demands is a single way a deal moves, with the account, the price and the owner settled before the customer notices the seam.
Ownership before territory
Every overlapping account has one owner, written down, before the next renewal. Case-by-case decisions are the most expensive rule a company can run.
Incentives that pay for the new motion
A cross-sell nobody is paid for is a slide. The plan has to reward the combined deal, or the old motions keep winning on Tuesday.
A baseline before the synergy claim
What each motion cost and produced before the merge, measured, so the synergy can be read against something rather than asserted.
What happens next
Three ways in, depending on what the evidence already says.
Executive Workshop
Three hours with the leadership of both sides. One condition named, in writing, before any evidence is gathered.
Explore the Workshop →Diagnosis
Interviews on both sides, the records each already produces and the combined company's own rates. What is breaking at the seam, what it costs, what to settle first.
Explore the Diagnosis →Strain Check
Ten questions, two minutes. A first read on which part of the combined system is carrying the most strain.
Take the Strain Check → FAQ
Before you give the cross-sell target another quarter.
The integration plan is already running. Why would a diagnosis add anything?
Most integration plans merge the organisation chart, the systems and the brand, and treat the commercial motion as something the combined team will work out. A Diagnosis reads what the two motions actually are, where they meet the same customer, and what the gap between them is already costing. It gives the plan the one thing it usually lacks: a baseline for the synergy it promised.
We closed three months ago. Is it too early?
It is the right time. The two systems are still visible as two, the people who ran each are still in place, and the account overlaps have not yet been settled by whoever argued best. Twelve months in, the case-by-case decisions have hardened into a third system nobody designed.
Which side's process should win?
That is the question the evidence answers, and it is rarely one side. The interviews and the records show which stages, definitions, pricing rules and handoffs each motion depends on, and the roadmap keeps the ones the combined customer base needs. Deciding by which company acquired the other is the most expensive way to settle it.
Has the method been used in mergers before?
Yes, in the lineage Kihon applies. The 2007 volume of published SEAM interventions includes a chapter on socio-economic intervention in merger and acquisition integration. Kihon's application to the commercial function specifically is its own research programme, and no client case is claimed.
Get started
Two systems, one target. A number shows where the seam is costing you.
Use 30 minutes to define the operating question, test what evidence exists on both sides and decide whether Kihon has a role at all. No scope is proposed before that is clear.
Discuss the operating problem