Synchronizing the Deal Team and Integration Team for Better Outcomes

Integration planning starts early

Russ Hartz: It took me a while in my career to fully recognize the importance of integration planning at the outset. 

But as you progress in your career and look at the outcomes of the deals you’ve worked on, you quickly realize that the success or failure of a transaction happens during the integration phase. The earlier you can plan and get it right, the better you’re setting up the transaction for success. 

At Ansys, we’ve developed a model that worked well during my time at SAP. It’s a strong partnership between the deal execution and integration functions, built around three key aspects: organizational structure, staffing for integrations, and processes. Integration is infused throughout the entire deal process across all these three vectors.

Carey Pugh: I agree that organizational structure, staffing, and processes form the foundation of successful integration. They’re critical. But there’s another layer to it as well. Transitioning can be stressful for everyone, especially for the target company. The earlier we build comprehensive integration plans, the more confident they’ll feel.

It’s also about having a well-informed team, both internally for us and even for the target company as well. Starting communication earlier allows them to develop a level of comfort and trust and familiarity with the integration team. 

Another critical element is having a smooth handoff from diligence to integration. The more connected those sides are, the easier it is. Communication at a higher level is essential—not just deal rationale or PowerPoint slides. It’s about capturing the little things that aren’t written down, the nuances picked up during diligence, and incorporating those into our integration plans.

The positive business outcomes of early integration

Russ: Involving integration early helps in meeting the metrics set out for the transaction—the hard, objective goals. Some people look at those objectives as just the plan. But it’s not just about setting goals; it’s about creating a plan to operationalize how to meet them. 

That planning has to happen early to hit the ground running. Without it, you’re already behind. Involving integration early increases the likelihood of achieving our goals. Our hit rate at Ansys is remarkably consistent. We hit those metrics on the timeframe that we've set out for hitting the metrics. We hear that 50%-ish of M&A deals are actually successful and I assume that is in some way relative to the business goals that are set out for those deals.

Say we take between 50% and 70% as the industry standard. We're at 90%+. We're in the high 90s! For us, at least, my time in seven years at Ansys, having done nearly 30 deals, that is astounding. There's got to be something about the way we do it, the way we approach it and, and how we put our model together. 

Carey: Early involvement of the integration team helps solidify the deal thesis. We understand the purpose behind the acquisition from the start, and that understanding flows directly into the integration planning. We also focus on people and change management early on. 

By involving team members in both diligence and integration, we’re able to document assumptions and capture nuances during diligence that we build into the integration plans. This makes a huge impact on the success of the deal.

Russ: I mentioned the three key elements to our model: organizational structure, staffing, and processes. Let’s discuss this to make it a little more concrete.

• Organizational Structure: This is our organization structure around the management of our integration function. Based on our model at Ansys, the integration team, led by Carey, reports to me as the M&A leader who also has responsibility for the deal execution team. 

So, there’s one M&A team and that includes the deal execution people and IMO. We communicate seamlessly. We’re part of the same team, we’re meeting on a weekly basis formally and stay in constant contact through informal chats. Communication isn’t something we think about—we’re just doing it seamlessly because we’re one team.

• Staffing: Our entire organization bought into M&A as a tool to achieve our growth strategy years ago when our current CEO took over. As a result, all major functions—HR, IT, legal, product, and sales— said that if M&A is going to be a key pillar in achieving our strategy, we better staff up to be able to meet the volume of M&A deals we’re going to do, and that senior management is behind. 

All of the major functions have people dedicated to support M&A activity. These individuals manage due diligence for their function and remain involved throughout integration. Many stay with the transaction through its entire lifecycle, ensuring continuity and efficiency.  

So, in terms of the seamlessness in coordinating the effort from the execution phase to the integration phase, you've got the same people staffed across all of those phases across all the functions.

• Processes: There’s a lot of different elements to our process and how integration is infused into every phase of our process.  That will come out more in the discussion.

It’s a single team with dedicated resources to ensure continuity throughout the deal.

Carey: There are two things that brought me to ANSYS. Number one, the fact that the integration team and the deal team are all under one leader. In my past positions, it's always been two separate individuals, and they're focused on different objectives. It's really hard to communicate and stay connected with those teams. 

And we're connected because I've been in a lot of staff meetings and there's just a lot of camaraderie between the folks that report to me and with me reporting to Russ, his direct reports as well. That made a huge difference, just in staying informed. 

But the other component to that is having dedicated resources. I've also been in prior positions where there are individuals that come in and out as far as that integration life cycle, and it's very confusing. 

It takes a lot of time to get certain people up to speed if they haven't done M&A previously. So having that dedicated individual in the functions really makes a huge impact on the success of the integration. 

Russ: Many of these functions have multiple people dedicated to M&A. In terms of deal size, we were averaging pre-COVID, and then the world settled again right after. Six to eight months post-COVID and the economy came back, we were averaging four to five deals a year. That's a lot for our company. 

Yes, we're public, we're large, but we're $2 billion large, not $20 billion large, like some of the tech behemoths. That's a lot of volume, and the only way you get to do that volume effectively and efficiently is to have the resources to handle it. 

And still, we can use more people, but we're lean and mean and we know what we're doing. We've got experienced people, not only as part of the M&A team that reports to me, but across the company. People have done this either in a prior stop or have done it many times at Ansys, so they know what they're doing and they're good at it.

Balancing strategy with practicality in early integration planning

Carey: Let’s break it down. For our team that reports to Russ, we usually get a little more information than the rest of the integration team early on. We’re aware of deals before the broader team knows. 

But once there’s an LOI signed, the entire team starts receiving more details about the upcoming deal, what the deal thesis is. We’re riding alongside them to understand some of the dynamics.

When our teams come together, Russ shares additional insights with us as integration leaders, which helps us know how to pivot. It’s a huge advantage in planning and getting ahead, anticipating and planning for potential risks or issues.

We usually consider integration after the LOI. There might be some high-level considerations, but we don’t invest significant effort until we know the deal is moving forward.

Russ: Carey usually knows about a potential deal within a couple of days after I know that we should even start talking to the company. Her team, the Integration Management Office (IMO), knows very early, even before the LOI. 

The IMO handles project management and oversees the entire integration process. The rest of the core M&A team, which includes my team and functional leaders from across the company, learns about deals a little later but still before the LOI is signed. 

Pre-LOI, we start thinking about what integration might look like. Is it going to be a rapid tuck-in model or are we going to leave the business alone longer if it’s in an area where we lack resources? 

We also begin estimating integration costs at a very high level, drawing from prior experience, not so much based on details because we don’t have a lot of details yet on that specific target. These estimates are rough but based on educated guesswork.

We start with a general idea rather than specific details. For smaller deals, having even a rough estimate can make a difference, especially with valuations fluctuating. As valuations have climbed higher, every last dollar that you can squeeze out of anything in your model is valuable. Overestimating integration costs could make it harder to justify the deal.

That's why I say it's educated. We take the information that we've got about the target at that early stage and we apply our past experiences with different profile companies. 

We actually go back and see what were actual integration costs on this prior deal that we did that had about the same number of employees, the same geographic footprint? We try to be as precise in our guesswork as we can in our estimates. Guesswork is not doing it justice as much more than guesswork at that early stage for us.

Carey: That’s the science. I see the early-stage planning is more of a science, while the back-end integration is more of an art. 

Russ: For large deals, being off by tens of millions might not matter much. But for the smaller to mid-sized deals we typically handle, precision in these early estimates is critical.

Surprises happen, but it’s typically more about diligence risks than miscalculations of integration. You might uncover a risk that wasn’t visible in the initial conversations with the target. 

Sometimes, it's financial accounting risks. But more often, it’s compliance issues. Many smaller targets don’t have in-house legal teams, so they think they’re following regulations but might inadvertently violate one. This creates liabilities, especially for a large public company that’s more visible. 

At that point, we ask: Do we still do the deal? Do we adjust the price? Or can we put contingencies in place to protect ourselves?

Proactive integration planning

Carey: After the LOI is signed, we start documenting assumptions and sharing them across the team cross-functionally. You need to understand what those assumptions are, and that's going to help inform your integration planning. That's the starting point for us. 

You take that deal thesis, add in your assumptions for each of the functional areas, and they can begin some of their planning from there. It's iterative, so they have to be able to pivot or modify those plans if those assumptions change or as we learn more information. 

During that time, we're thinking about the targeted information we need to receive after we close just based on what we've received to date, what we don't know, what's missing. 

We really start to hone in on some of those areas, like what we need within the first 30 days, or we'll have to tackle this within the first 90 days. They're able to identify some of that analysis that needs to go a step further post close.

Managing integration planning milestones

Carey: There's a lot of information that comes out post close. You can map out a plan and what you're going to do. 

Obviously, once the sale is done and we start to integrate, there are a lot of little things that we learn that don't quite map to what those original assumptions were. That's when the teams really have to come together to figure out. Maybe it's  something that involves IT and how we're going to incorporate technology. 

We may have had a plan to shift them within a certain period of time.We'll say six months, but we may find that just due to the technology and the dependence, maybe it's going to be 12 to 18 months. So it may be something like just changing a timing or a time frame. Sometimes it's pivoting and saying, right now we're going to leave this piece as is. 

We're not going to make any changes because we don't want to experience any major business disruption for the clients and we want to keep everything steady. 

Russ: I do want to go back because we skipped ahead. We're now talking about post-acquisition topics, but I want to return to post-LOI and pre-deal and touch on some of the process points.

Once the LOI is signed, we move squarely into the detailed due diligence phase. As a process point, we pull together the core M&A team, which includes representatives from all functions dedicated to M&A. Of course, our M&A team is part of that.

We meet usually twice a week—more or less, depending on the size of the deal. During these meetings, we go round-robin through the functions: 

• What are you seeing? 
• What's worrying you about this deal? 
• What are you not seeing? 
• What do you need from the target that you’re not getting? 
• What’s your early planning for post-deal, based on what you’re learning during due diligence?

Everyone hears what the other functions are seeing, not seeing, or planning. This allows teams to factor that information into their workstreams, add to what others are observing, or identify gaps. 

For example, sales might propose an integration plan, but finance might raise concerns about order entry issues that haven’t been addressed. These are live, working sessions. They typically happen a couple of times per week during the deal process. 

Carey, or whoever from her team is leading the integration effort, participates to hear all the discussions and start solidifying plans for running the integration. 

A lot of diligence information is coming in directly during this phase. 

As we approach the latter stages, this is when integration planning moves front and center. While integration leads have been involved from the beginning, they start taking more of a lead role as we near the end.

As part of our process toward the back end of pre-signing, we bring the executive team—at least the CEO—together with Carry or the integration lead. The discussion focuses on the process: how we’ll run it, what to expect, and what life post-deal will look like.

This is a forum for the CEO or other executive team members to ask questions. There’s often a lot of anxiety at this stage, and they have burning questions about the future. We answer as much as we can. It’s an important step because the executive team begins to take on the role of being the face of the integration phase—before the deal is even signed.

Carey: We also hold internal integration kickoff meetings before closing. During these sessions, we align with key founders on what to expect post-close and who will lead functions on their side. Setting these expectations early ensures we’re ready to bring the teams together for the formal kickoff within the first week or two after close.

Russ: We talk about readouts and discussions about the integration or dealing with what we're finding in diligence in the transaction terms. Also, we discuss how we are going to deal with it during the integration. 

• Is it going to affect our budget model? 
• Is the way we're going to tackle some of the things that we find in diligence in the integration going to cause greater cost?

So we're talking about that in those biweekly meetings.

Kickoff meeting structure

Russ: The core M&A team holds a kickoff meeting shortly after the LOI is signed. From there, we move into regular biweekly meetings—typically on Tuesdays and Thursdays. These meetings focus on diligence updates and discussions about how findings might impact integration and the transaction terms.

We do biweekly readouts, where we talk about diligence findings, integration concerns, and potential cost implications. The meetings are usually an hour long and led by the execution lead for the transaction. They start with updates from the deal execution chair—things like whether we’re on track with the timeline. 

Then, the lead goes around the table, giving each function a chance to share what they’re seeing, any concerns, and their early integration planning.

We begin with high-level updates and then allow each function to voice their position. Every function gets a chance to share their observations and plans. This ensures collaboration and a shared understanding of how diligence ties into integration.

Carey: All of these conversations go back to the assumptions and integration planning that we've structured very early on. There's a lot of collaboration and conversation, but you have to start to capture some of those assumptions and ideas, and that's the basis for your integration plan and how you're going to roll it out. 

But there's another element to that too. You should always observe the target company and even the differences in culture. 

You’ve got to think about what their management style is, how they inform their employees on changes, what their perks are, because that's always a big one. They may have perks that we don't have, and we have to start thinking about how we're going to manage through some of those things.

For instance, do they have a chef on site? Do they do yoga on Mondays? Can they bring their dog to work? All of those things, they seem silly, but the people really hang on to those things. They can become a big deal, so it's good for us to know what those things are and be thinking about them early.

Russ: Exactly. We pay attention to those characteristics. While these aren’t deal-breaking issues, they’re critical for integration. Understanding these characteristics helps us plan how to manage the transition. If we ignore these details, we risk losing the hearts and minds of the people at the target company.

Carey: It’s about setting the right tone from day one. We need to acknowledge and address these cultural differences to set the right tone from day one.

Adapting integration approaches to cultural differences

Carey: We generally aim to bring companies into Ansys and make them part of our broader organization, but there’s no one-size-fits-all approach. Each integration is different, and we adjust based on the culture and how they operate. The goal is to figure out the best way to integrate them into Ansys.

They’re all tough because every situation is unique. But when we approach it on an individual level rather than with a broad-brush method, it helps them feel like part of the company. Listening to them is crucial for me.

Russ: That aligns with the Ansys culture. We have four core values—don’t ask me to name them all right now—but one of them is to be open. That can mean a lot of things, including being flexible and open to new ideas.

While Ansys has its own distinct culture, we’re open to understanding slightly different ones. If there’s a complete culture mismatch, it starts to affect diligence and calls into question whether we can make the business successful within Ansys. You need the acquired team’s people to help achieve those objectives.

If it’s a total mismatch, it’s not just about perks like cafeterias—it challenges your ability to execute on the core business goals. In those cases, we usually sense it in the first few meetings, and those conversations don’t go very far.

Carey: Culture isn’t always a dealbreaker, but if the mismatch is significant, it’s unlikely we’ll proceed.

Russ Hartz: Culture isn’t so tactical that it changes our integration strategy, but more about being mindful to create a positive experience for the incoming team.

The IMO, led by Carey and her team, takes responsibility for much of the cultural assessment and change management, partnering closely with HR. While everyone on the core M&A team needs to be mindful of culture within their function, the overall responsibility for this rests with the IMO and HR. This is a common approach among acquirers with well-established integration functions.

As we approach signing and closing, these meetings focus more on integration. We discuss priorities, what integration will look like, and refine the initial plans based on what we’ve learned during diligence.

The ultimate outcome of these sessions is delivering content that becomes part of our business case for executive approval. The business case includes the final financial model and high-level integration plans across functions. This process instills discipline in integration planning because everyone knows their work will culminate in a plan presented to the executive team.

Carey: As we approach closing, those conversations are about setting expectations and building a partnership. We walk them through the integration process, the practices we use, and how we structure integration.

We also ask them to identify who on their side will lead each functional area. For smaller companies, it might be one or two people covering multiple functions. For larger companies, it’s more dispersed. Having these leaders in place is critical to a smooth integration.

Because we’re involved so early, we’ve already built relationships and rapport with the founders. I stress to my team the importance of staying connected—weekly or biweekly one-on-ones with key founders are essential. 

Founders often share sensitive concerns in these meetings that they might not bring up in larger groups. Addressing these issues early prevents them from becoming problems.

We incentivize the founders to stick around.

Russ Hartz: Many founders feel a strong connection to their company. Even if they’d like to relax, they want to make sure things get off to a good start. So, they might splurge on a new toy but still stay involved.

In those early meetings, we aim to instill confidence by explaining our integration process and being transparent.

For example, founders might request that their current benefits continue post-deal, but if we know that’s not feasible, we’re upfront about it. Instead, we consider alternatives, like slight compensation increases to offset higher benefit costs, ensuring their take-home pay stays consistent.

Trust is critical. These discussions build that trust by clearly communicating what’s possible and what’s not, setting a foundation for collaboration.

Key factors considered during diligence

Carey: Some of the key factors we consider during due diligence include how the target company is structured, their communication style, and their management approach. These elements are critical and become part of our planning.

We also start capturing assumptions during diligence—things we’ll validate post-close. These assumptions are the foundation of our planning, helping us align our integration approach and ensure everyone is on the same page.

That ties back to the culture piece we touched on earlier. It’s a big part of the process.

One example is with Xtrality. For that deal, we created a formalized timeline during the early planning stage. This was something I pushed the team to do, and it helped us capture milestones more effectively post-integration.

We started by mapping out what needed to be accomplished, validating assumptions, identifying required analyses, and determining what data we needed. Since there’s limited information you can request during diligence, we planned carefully to avoid overwhelming the target.

For Xtrality, we mapped out a timeline based on assumptions—if we received certain data within 30 days, we could complete integration within 90 days. This structured approach allowed us to create a realistic project and integration plan.

Laying out those timelines and milestones upfront was a major factor in getting ahead of challenges.

Each function has a set of tasks that need to be completed, and the teams assess which tasks apply to a specific integration. They also add unique tasks if necessary. This repeatable structure helps us analyze what’s required, gather the necessary data, and build a solid project plan.

Russ: I’ll add that this early integration planning model is particularly effective in deals involving transition services. For example, when carving out a business from a larger organization, early planning helps us figure out how to execute transition services—whether we’re providing them or receiving them as the buyer.

Transition services often overlap with core integration activities, and the same resources are responsible for both. The integration team’s involvement early on ensures that these services don’t become a separate, disruptive factor. Instead, they’re seamlessly integrated into the overall plan. Additionally, early integration planning informs the economics of transition services, such as estimating post-deal costs.

Transition services can really complicate integration if not managed properly. By coordinating everything upfront, we avoid surprises and ensure all moving parts work together instead of creating noise and disruption.

Building a strong partnership between deal and integration teams

Russ: It’s been a great partnership with Carey. I used the word “seamless” earlier, and that’s exactly what it is. We probably talk four or five times a week, even when we’re not actively working on a deal. During a diligence process, it’s every day—multiple times a day. We’re constantly chatting, and it just works.

It helps that we genuinely like each other. We spend time together outside of work, and that makes the collaboration easier and more effective.

Carey: I agree. This ties back to what we discussed earlier in the podcast about the reporting structure. That connection across the team has been critical.

For me, team building is incredibly important. Our team is cohesive, and we all get along really well. Russ and I approach things similarly, and he gives us autonomy in what we do, which is valuable to me and my team. That kind of trust and alignment allows us to communicate quickly, pivot when necessary, and work efficiently.

Russ: The whole team is very close. You could have this same conversation with any two members of the integration management team paired with the deal execution team, and they’d tell you the same thing about how their relationship works during a deal.

I’ve been in M&A for a long time, and part of the reason I’ve been able to sustain it is by adopting a “work hard, play hard” mentality. During deals, we work around the clock—weekends, holidays, whatever it takes. But when we have downtime, we take a breather, spend time together, and talk about things beyond M&A. We share stories about our families, interests, and lives outside of work.

I think that camaraderie plays a big role in how we operate. When we’re in the thick of a deal, we function at a very high level because of the trust and connection we’ve built.

Key traits to look for in an integration partner

Russ: The ideal integration partner needs to be an effective communicator and a people person. M&A is a people business at every stage, but integration especially so.

They also need to be flexible. While we rarely encounter surprises that completely upend the deal thesis, we do face many small surprises along the way. These require tweaks and adjustments to the integration plan and assumptions. An integration partner needs to handle these constructively, keeping the overall business objectives in mind and adapting without disrupting those goals.

Good communication skills and flexibility are the two most critical traits.

Carey: I’d add that having project management experience is equally important. Integration involves timelines, deadlines, and milestones, so you need someone who’s structured and understands how to drive those aspects effectively.

I also agree with Russ—empathy is key. The companies coming in are going through significant change, and it’s essential to care about their experience. An integration partner must approach the process with an empathetic lens, understanding the challenges the employees are facing, easing their concerns, and fostering trust.

Russ: All members of our integration management office act as champions for the acquired business. While they work for ANSYS and have ANSYS’s best interests at heart, they take their role as advocates for the acquired business and its people very seriously.

Aligning the deal and integration teams

Carey: When you bring a team together, having strong connections outside of work really helps. For example, we do team-building activities beyond M&A. We’re fortunate that many of us share similar interests, like sports, which has been a big theme for our team.

Having that connection outside of work helps us work more effectively together. It builds empathy for one another—understanding how we work and approach challenges differently. Everyone plays a unique role, and that diversity of approach strengthens our communication and willingness to tackle tough issues.

It also fosters a sense of shared responsibility. When someone is tied up or unable to handle a task, the rest of the team steps in. People say, “I’ll take that on” or “I’ll pick this up.” That sense of teamwork stems from the trust and camaraderie we’ve built.

Russ: Bringing them together is the goal. One thing you might not know about me, Kison, is that I’m a Division III college softball coach. Softball is a team sport, and for me, this focus on teamwork comes from that background. I’ve been coaching almost as long as I’ve been doing M&A, and the lesson is clear: you can’t do this work alone.

Even if you had the bandwidth, even if you were the smartest person in the room with endless experience—which no one is—there’s just too much to manage. Too much planning, thinking, and work to do. It has to be a team effort.

And it’s not just the M&A team within corporate development—it’s the expanded core M&A team that includes functions from across the company. We proactively maintain that team culture and structure to drive everything we do in M&A.

Best practices for synchronizing the deal team and integration team

Carey: Beyond team-building activities, driving accountability is crucial. Each function must take responsibility, speak up when they see potential issues, and follow through. That accountability is a key factor in our success at Ansys.

Russ: Absolutely. And I’ll tie this back to the three elements we mentioned earlier: the organizational model, staffing, and processes. These are all designed to create a collaborative and well-coordinated team approach.

Now, I understand some companies may not have the resources to staff dedicated M&A roles across every function. That’s legitimate. If staffing is a constraint, at the very least, try to have the same individuals involved in diligence and integration across multiple deals.

Even if these individuals aren’t dedicated to M&A full-time, using the same people from deal to deal allows them to gain experience, build relationships with the team, and climb the learning curve more quickly. You’re not training a new finance, legal, or HR person for every deal—they develop expertise and familiarity with the M&A process over time.

The same people from each function—finance, legal, HR—should be involved across multiple deals to build continuity. 

Even if they have other roles in the organization, they should be the go-to person for M&A within their function. Their managers also need to understand that when a deal is active, the M&A work takes priority.

M&A operates on tight timelines—30, maybe 45 days. You can’t have someone treating M&A as a secondary task they’ll get to when they have time. It has to be their focus during the deal process.

Russ: If I were a new M&A team leader, the first thing I’d do is make sure there’s buy-in across the organization, all the way up to the CEO. If the initiative is driven from the top down, it will happen.

Functional leads—whether it’s HR, legal, sales, or product—need to hear from executive leadership that M&A is a priority for the company and that everyone needs to align to make it successful. Otherwise, they’ll focus on what benefits their function the most on a day-to-day basis. For example, a sales leader might prioritize quarterly sales targets over dedicating resources to the M&A project. You can’t have that. You can’t dabble in M&A and expect to get it right.

Carey: When there’s a lack of accountability, you’ll miss timelines, milestones, and your targeted closing date. Integration becomes much harder because of all the loose ends that can’t be wrapped up. This severely impacts the success of the integration and your ability to fully bring the acquired business into the company.

Russ: And those stumbles don’t go unnoticed. The target company and its management team see them. You’re sending a message that M&A isn’t important enough to the company that’s about to own their business.

Even if you make it across the finish line, you risk losing people—key individuals who are critical to the value proposition of the deal. That undermines the very reasons you pursued the acquisition in the first place.

Carey: I experienced putting a leader in place for M&A priorities at former companies, but not at Ansys. It’s very difficult, especially when egos are involved. It often requires a series of conversations. There have been times when I’ve had to escalate the issue to their business sponsors or the executives they report to for support.

I try to handle it as much as I can myself, but sometimes there are limits, and you need to involve other leaders to help bring them along.

Russ: You want to avoid escalation whenever possible because you’re likely going to work with that leader repeatedly. But, as Carey said, sometimes you have no choice.

The power of buyer-led M&A

Russ: When you get to the point of being a buyer-led acquirer, you need the confidence to stick with your approach. If a seller or banker tries to push you to agree to something that you know won’t work on the back end, you have to be willing to walk away.

It’s like being on a car dealership lot—your power comes from knowing your limits and sticking to them. For us, being disciplined means doing things our way because we know it works.

We’re very upfront with bankers. Once we sign an LOI, it has to be our process. Otherwise, we can’t get the executive approvals we need. Our leadership expects a thorough business case that includes diligence findings, integration plans, and retention strategies. If we don’t deliver that, the answer will be no, because it creates unnecessary risk.

We make it clear: we’ll stick with the process that has made us successful. It benefits everyone. While bankers aren’t incentivized for integration success, we are. Employee retention is a key metric for us, and we consistently achieve mid-to-high 90s retention rates in every deal.

Buyer-led M&A is about front-loading integration—planning early to ensure success.

Carey: Exactly. For us, it’s about the rigor and processes we’ve developed through years of experience. That’s the science behind our approach. It’s not just about integrating a business; it’s about making it successful within Ansys.

What’s unique at Ansys is that the integration team stays involved even after the formal integration phase is over. If a business is struggling post-integration, we step in to help them get back on track. In my past roles, once integration was done, we walked away. Here, we continue to ensure long-term success.

Plan early but also plan to stay involved. We don’t just close out an integration and forget about it. We let the teams know they can always come back to us for support. That’s part of our culture at Ansys and a big reason for our success.

Creating a seamless people experience in buyer-led M&A

Carey: Mapping out the employee journey is critical. It’s about understanding how the changes impact employees and managers and identifying areas where support is needed.

You have two perspectives to consider. First, there’s the experience of employees joining a new company. Then, there’s the perspective of managers coming into Ansys and adapting to how we operate.

We focus on equipping managers with the tools and information they need to lead effectively and support their teams through the transition. When employees feel valued and considered during the process, it strengthens their sense of belonging and ultimately contributes to retention.

Russ: Small gestures can make a big impact. For example, our CEO personally addresses acquired teams shortly after the acquisition. If he can’t visit them onsite, he’ll record a video message or send an email. Other executive leaders also send welcoming messages to the entire acquired team, explaining why they were chosen and why they’re important to Ansys.

At our quarterly all-hands meetings, the CEO publicly welcomes the new team to all ANSYS employees. These actions reinforce the idea that they’re not just joining a company—they’re joining a family.