Acquisition is where an organization develops its resources and competences by taking over another organization. For the sake of this discussion, it must be noted here that an acquisition strategy may be a standalone, single purpose document or it may be part of a more comprehensive multi-purpose document. The primary goal in selecting an acquisition strategy is to minimize the time and cost of satisfying and identified, validated need consistent with common sense aid sound-business practices.
The acquisition strategy shall include critical events that govern the management of the program. It shall also be tailored to meet specific needs of individual programs including consideration of incremental development and fielding strategies. The acquisition strategy will serve as a checklist to ensure that all important issues and alternatives are considered a decision aid in prioritizing and integrating many functional requirements, evaluating and selecting alternatives, identifying decision points and providing a co-coordinated approach.

* A basis for preparing program plans and activities
* The formal record of all strategic changes made in response to evolving threat, technology and other environmental factors and the vehicle for building and achieving consensus. Research show that most acquisition do not work, it is reported that most acquisition do not work, it is reported that in today’s business environment, almost every organization is expected to be involved in a merger or acquisition at a certain stage in its life-cycle. Thus from the above it could be deduced that a strategy could be required to embark on an acquisition.
There are basically three strategy-making tasks.

1. Developing a strategic vision
2. Setting objectives
3. Crafting a strategy
An attempt would be made in discussing these strategy-making tasks to show how each of them could be utilize in considering an acquisition.

1. Developing a strategic Vision :
A strategic vision is a view of a company’s future direction and business makeup, a guiding concept for what the company is trying to do and to become. In effect strategic visions chart a company’s future for the next say 5-10 years. Very importantly, strategic visions are company-specific and not generic i.e. to say they must be tailored for the company in question. The vision is not defined in terms of making a profit.

In developing a strategic vision, three main questions are asked.

* Who or what are we now?
* Who or what do we want to become?
* How will we get there from here?

Thus, the vision or strategic intent which is the desired future state of the organization is an aspiration around which a strategist might seek to focus the attention and energies of members of the organization. The strategist must at this stage

1. Define the company’s present business
2. Decide on a long-term strategic path (course) and
3. Communicate the vision in ways that are clear, exciting and inspiring strategist
have come to accept that decisions to merge assume that synergy will develop between two organizations that combine resources and talent and achieve economies of scale, scope and integrated technologies.

Sometimes financial issues overshadow most mergers and acquisitions neglecting other critical aspects of the merger such as vision (mission), planning (strategy) and human resources (i.e. people-factor) making synergies unsuccessful. It would, therefore, be prudent at this stage of strategy-making to tailor the vision in line with intended acquired company. This is development of romance i.e. building a shared vision and commitment. This is to try to forestall any possible future conflict that might emerge should there be a merger or an acquisition. This is done in relation to defining the company’s present or intended business based on satisfying customer needs, target markets and technologies used. It is possible that if the mission of the organization is developed in defining the company’s business as hypothesized. To avoid pitfalls of an intended acquisition the shared vision of the future must be created diagnosing key elements of the vision so as to understand the common and divergent views of the partners. This vision must be tailored to prepare the company for its long-term vision in the wake of any acquisition.

The defined vision must then be communicated to the management and staff providing a means for department management to create their own visions, objectives and strategies and creating enthusiasm among employees must also be repeated often times.

The next task in strategy-making is objective setting. Objectives, usually financial or marketing, are the quantification or more specific statements of the goal. For example “2.5% market share in two months”. Objectives must be-SMART- specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and timely. If these characteristics are inherent in any objective, it has a greater probability to succeed. Thus in considering an acquisition, the objectives must first address when to actually acquire, how must to be spent in the acquisition, specific, measurable and realistic performance targets by a certain time. At this stage, the objectives must be set for both long-term and short-term horizons. The short-term objective focusing on the communication aspect of the vision and the long-term on, staff training and recruitment for the intending acquisition. Nevertheless, as history shows that acquisitions fail to live up to expectations, numerous research over the last 10 years have proven that decisions must be made quickly and often under tremendous pressure as already tight resources are stretched even further. Objectives on this must be timely. Sayewitz (1997) writes that according to recently released survey of 124 USS comp… achieving 80% of their objectives. Firms that took more gradual approach reported a failure rate of close to 50%…. As difficult as this might be, in practice the least management should do is to speed up the acquisition as soon as the opportunities show up after all the necessary analysis has been completed.

The next and final task is crafting the strategy. Crafting a strategy is all about how to reach performance targets set tin the objectives, making the strategic vision a reality, capture market opportunities, achieve sustainable competitive advantage strengthen the firm’s long-term competitive p and out-perform rivals. In effect, it is how managers analyse and think about complex strategic problem and adapting to the challenges inherent in the changing environment. First used by Mintzberg (1887) illustrating with a potter at a wheel molding a lump of clay, his view was that the most productive and real world way to view strategic management is not the strategic planning model, but rather one that merges formulation of strategy with its implementation; in other words have meant that if an organization embarks upon a determined change of strategy, certain aspects of implementation will be changed as it becomes increasingly clear with experience how best to manage the environmental forces even though the basic tools for crating a strategy are SWOT analysis, value chain analysis and scenario mapping, applying Mintzberg’s developing and understanding and commitment to the role M & A strategy involves developing and understanding and commitment to the role M&A activity should play in achieving the company’s strategic objectives.

A good strategy of the acquisition, say fundamental transformation or to just to strengthen certain business units. It must also develop a framework for senior managers to creating potential of various potential acquisitions outlined; substantiate a variety of integration options and how integration plans may vary across potential acquisitions.

Most importantly, the strategy must develop profiles of acquisition candidate(s) consistent with the acquisition strategy and reflects an understanding of realities under M & A market place so as to model the financial implications under a variety of scenarios. The strategy must also developed such that depending on the strategic objectives a relationship is built with the potential acquisition candidates in the areas of marketing integrated supply agreements and possibly accounting practices integrated supply agreements and possibly accounting practices post-Enron era. In addition to building relations, organisations must also establish an external network involving the investment bank and the potential candidates.

Though not trying to confine the M & A market to rigid objectives, in the best, M & A processes informs strategy as well as being guided by it. Thus, through the process of evaluating candidates and putting deals together, the organization can narrow the acquisition parameters and better envision what the company could become by choosing the right acquisition. The organization must also craft a human resources strategy getting the people-related issues right maintaining employee morale that will retain key employees, despite the usual hiccups after major changes, according to research by mercer outlined in an article ‘making a success of mergers and acquisition’ on their website. It went on to further point out that the people are integrated into the new organization is a key to sustained success. By effectively addressing these people issues earlier on, senior executives can determine the feasibility of a deal sooner than later and also lay the foundation required for the long term success of deals planned ahead.

Invariably, qualitative variables are historically proven as the best estimates to increase firm’s value through liquidity, solvency and profitability. Some of these are: strong mission, objectives, strategies such as strong economic and financial forecasting, project evaluation and decision. Other important variables are: strong human resources, flexibility, transparency and good governance, ethical and legal strengths, division of responsibilities, risks and crisis mgt applications. These areas are such that even a little oversight or miss calculation might produce significant consequences leading to create deterrence in the transition to creating the firm’s value.

One of the best known measurement models for internal communications has to be the employee-customer-profit chain from Sears Roebuck that established a link between employees with the right attitudes to work and the profit the company can expect as a result of engaged consumers. The mechanics of measurement do not lie in the model itself – they reside within the strategic alignment that has been created between the drivers and units of measure that determine satisfaction and management buy-in to commit to the process.

Measurement, therefore, starts at the beginning. It must be incorporated into the strategic outline of the communication plan and benchmarks must be set to ensure that specific goals are achieved. In traditional measurement, only output is calculated through content and processes. In many instances, the efficiency of the communication, or impact, is not addressed. It is well established that communication tiers build on themselves: they start by building awareness; with the hope of gaining understanding; which in turn leads to acceptance and to commitment; and only then, to action – which is the unit of measurement.

The traditional measurement techniques are no longer adequate to prove meaningful return. A more robust model must be adopted that addresses business strategy and its key drivers. It requires alignment between the company’s business vision and goals, the business and reputational priorities, and the strategic communication objectives. In other words, aligning the outcome to a tangible business need and measuring cause and effect.

Few would argue that internal communication starts at the top – with the CEO – and is the responsibility of all employees. It is for this reason that when a communications audit is conducted, a heavy score be allocated to management training and buy-in. This is not without reason. With the Sears Roebuck model, the employee-customer-profit chain became a cornerstone of the management decision process – something that required a thorough understanding of the system.

The model further argued that while the processes appeared undemanding from the outside, and a simple communication challenge, the underlying issue was that of trust and of business and economic literacy. It was believed that if the employees did not grasp the purpose of the system, understand it, and have a clear picture of how their own work fits into the model, the processes could not succeed. What this proves is that communication that does not cascade and does not have buy-in from all levels, will not produce a meaningful impact on the business. Communication starts at the top and is championed by management, but if staff do not understand the strategic direction and the behaviours required of them, they will not be able to successfully deliver a quantifiable return.

There would be few who would disagree that internal communication is an essential aspect of organisational development and change. The discipline continues to evolve in a world of new technologies, shifting perceptions, changing workforces and global influences. Management Communication Quarterly reported a study that found a correlation between employees’ satisfaction with communication in their organisations and organisational commitment, productivity, job performance, satisfaction, and other significant outcomes. This is further echoed in information published by the Public Relations Society of America, who report that more than 80 percent of employees polled in the US and UK said that employee communication influences their desire to stay with or leave an organisation. Nearly a third said communication was a “big influence” on their decision.

In principle, effective communication is able to facilitate meaningful engagement and build trust. These are critical factors in sustainable organisations, who enhance business performance through engaged staff who influence customers. Establishing whether the mechanisms being used in a particular organisation are working effectively is a critical contributor to this success.

What makes an active board effective? In this case, the old adage “a whole is greater than the sum of the parts” clearly applies. Well-qualified directors with the skills, experience, time and motivation to dedicate to the job are crucial. But, while necessary, the right people are not sufficient to ensure board effectiveness.

Board effectiveness, defined as the successful fulfillment of the dual roles of providing strategic insight and management oversight, requires appropriate information, an agenda focused on key strategic issues, healthy discussion and debate, and a commitment to doing the job well. All of these elements are the responsibility of the board chair.

To better understand the chair’s role and responsibility, we need to look at two models of board leadership – the combined Chair/CEO structure and the split structure (where these positions are filled by two distinct individuals).

In the combined model, which was the structure reported by 63 percent of respondents to the board survey conducted for our book, the key to success is ensuring the CEO understands that the Chair role is an important and separate job. Too often, CEOs are so busy running the company that chair responsibilities slide.

Chair responsibilities, regardless of who fills the role, include:

Ensuring information board members need to hold an effective conversation is sent in advance of the meeting;
Setting the appropriate agenda, focused on strategic issues and oversight, with the right amount of time allotted to each issue;
Ensuring appropriate reporting of board activities in the meeting minutes;
Ensuring shareholders are kept adequately informed of affairs of the company and have confidence in the oversight provided by the board;
Developing and maintaining a shareholder relations program for the company;
Ensuring appropriate committee structure, membership and responsibilities;
Actively facilitating board members, promoting a culture of discussion and debate and balanced participation of all members;
Maintaining top-level contact with members of the community to ensure that company is properly recognized, dealt with and appropriately represented in community affairs;
Identifying ethical dilemmas in the company and reporting on those annually to the board;
Ensuring accountability of management for setting and achieving budgets and plans.

This final responsibility, ensuring accountability, is the most difficult to fulfill in the combined structure. In effect, the CEO is responsible for holding himself accountable. To make this structure work, the CEO/Chair must be willing to take feedback from other directors and admit mistakes. He or she must also be willing to let other directors meet in executive session without him or her to discuss issues they may have with respect to the CEO’s performance, as well as any other management issue that may be best handled without management in the room.

In the split structure, the Chair is tasked with the same responsibilities. One concern with this model is it creates a lack of clarity concerning who is in charge. Yet, note that most Chair responsibilities begin with the word “ensure” rather than “do.” The Chair’s job is more to make sure that things happen than to actually do them him or herself. So, his job is not to lead the organization but rather to lead the board. And, leading the board essentially means ensuring that it is fulfilling its designated role and responsibilities.

That said, the split structure does require strong coordination between the Chair and CEO. In this model, the CEO will often take the lead in setting the agenda and preparing advance and in-meeting materials. While the board’s role is to oversee the CEO, it is also to support the management team and provide expertise and insight. To effectively focus the board’s attention on the appropriate issues, the CEO must have a strong hand in setting the agenda, but not so strong that accountability is compromised.

Beyond preparing agendas and materials, some CEOs even take the lead in facilitating board meetings. Whoever leads the meeting, however, the Chair must take responsibility for ensuring the meeting is well run and should step in if things get off track.

At the highest level, the Chair is responsible for enforcing management accountability and the overall effectiveness of board process. An annual board evaluation is a useful tool to ensure the board is operating effectively.

Typically, corporate by-laws state that the board elects its Chair. In practice, owners have a strong influence in the choice of Chair by stating their preference for a family vs. a non-family chair and their desire for a combined or split model. Regardless of who fills the Chair seat-an independent director, retired CEO or acting CEO-the Chair must remember the important responsibility of shareholder relations. We recommend that the chair write a periodic letter to shareholders summarizing the activities of the board (without disclosing confidential information of course), present it at shareholder meetings and find opportunity to interact with shareholders on a more informal basis. The Chair should also welcome and respond to inquiries from shareholders.

How do family businesses ensure they have a strong Chair? First, the family must clarify its vision concerning how the role should be structured. The family should also insist that a job description for the Chair be developed. Ideally, if the family desires that a family member fill the chair role, it should ensure a development program is in place to build the skills needed in a good Chair. This development plan should encourage leadership opportunities for potential candidates, including participation in other for-profit or non-profit boards. The family should also develop strong ownership education programs and create opportunities for candidates to attend education programs on family business governance.

Contrast marketing – also known as The Dandelion Effect – is a little known, under used, but extremely powerful strategic marketing strategy for business owners and Entrepreneurs.

Chances are you’ve never heard of it. This strategic marketing strategy is not generally taught in business schools. But then again – the best marketing strategies rarely are.

So what is contrast marketing? What is The Dandelion Effect? What does it have to do with strategic marketing? And how can it help your business create an unfair competitive advantage?

Bryson Garbett gets it.

He understands.

He already knows pretty much everything that you need to know about The Dandelion Effect.

You’re probably wondering who this Bryson Garbett fellow is.

And you’re also wonder what in tarnation is “The Dandelion Effect”, and what on earth it has to do with strategic marketing.

Bryson Garbett is the President and CEO of Garbett Homes in Salt Lake City, Utah.

And The Dandelion Effect is an incredibly powerful marketing concept discovered by yours truly. Simply put, its a perfect example of the power of strategic marketing. It’s Contrast Marketing at its finest.

Garbett Homes is a revolutionary home builder that is pioneering the construction of all-green, ultra-energy-efficient and environmentally-conscious homes.

Their business is thriving, and they have created the “Green” model that homebuilders across the Western United States are trying to duplicate (usually unsuccessfully).

More on this exploding small business later.

Now let’s talk about The Dandelion Effect.

I want you to imagine that you have a perfectly manicured, lush, deep green lawn (for those of you in Manhattan this will take an extra dose of imagination). A lawn that you meticulously care for, spending hours trimming, edging, fertilizing, and talking to your lawn. A lawn that your grandfather would be proud of.

A lawn that is so perfect that your neighbors’ lawns are green with envy (pun totally intended).

Now I want you to imagine that one fine summer morning, you step out your front door in your bathrobe (or your underwear – but I’m not here to judge). You yawn, stretch, scratch, try to decide if you should grab the morning paper before or after starting the coffee pot, and then…

…you see it, and are stopped dead in your tracks.

There, sprouting right in the middle of your ridiculously perfect lawn is a mammoth, neon yellow Dandelion.

Your perfect sea of carefully-groomed greenness is ruined by that one stupid yellow weed.

Suddenly you don’t notice the lawn anymore. All that you can see if that DAMN DANDELION!

Guess what, folks – that Dandelion is YOUR BUSINESS.

That lawn is EVERYONE ELSE.

The whole point of the strategic marketing strategy known as The Dandelion Effect is for your business to stand out like a bright yellow Dandelion on an otherwise unbroken field of dark green grass.

So what does this have to do with Garbett Homes? Are they landscaping their yards with dandelions? (I’m almost afraid to suggest this idea to them. I’m sure they’d call it “native vegetation” and run with it…)

In an excellent example proving that they grasp strategic marketing, Garbett Homes recently found a perfect way use The Dandelion Effect.

I was driving down the freeway a few weeks ago, past the same dirty, stinky, nasty oil refinery that decades ago some brilliant city planner decided to allow to be constructed on prime commercial property alongside the freeway just north of Salt Lake City.