← Every exhibit
Three perspectives on codified integration playbooks
How empirical management research views codified integration tools, and where the consultant market parts company with the evidence.
| Study / Source | Sample & Scope | What was measured | Headline finding |
|---|---|---|---|
| Zollo & Singh (2004) | 228 US bank acquisitions | Sum of acquisition tools developed by the acquiring firm | Knowledge codification strongly predicts performance (b = 0.207, p < 0.001); deal experience alone does not (ns) |
| Heimeriks, Schijven & Gates (2012) | 85 active corporate acquirers | Codified routines vs higher-order risk management practices | Routine codification creates organizational rigidity; benefits vanish unless mediated by active customization |
| Graebner et al. (2017) | Systematic review, AOM Annals | Synthesis of decades of PMI empirical research | Explicitly states: the performance impact of externally sourced tools (consultants) is completely unmeasured |
| Consultancy Market (e.g. Bain 2026) | Vendor promotional material | Proprietary methodologies ("Signal", "Integration Thesis") | Asserts 75% higher synergies and 16% TSR lift; zero published methodology or sample data |
Swipe or scroll horizontally if the table is wider than your screen.
Reference & Evidence
Source: Author's synthesis of Zollo & Singh (2004), Heimeriks et al. (2012), and Graebner et al. (2017).
Related exhibits
-
Integration governance against the empirical record
From the essay The playbook study never asked who made the tools
-
One LTV:CAC ratio, three cash paths
From the essay The LTV:CAC ratio hides the timing
-
The measured investment share of SG&A by industry
From the essay The thirty-percent rule for sales and marketing