Subscribe to EDN

Integration and differentiation

August 12, 2009

EDA acquisitions are very tricky to manage in most cases. This is because most acquisitions are acquiring two things: a business and a technology.

In the long run the technology is usually the most important aspect of the acquisition but the business is important for two separate reasons. Firstly, the revenue associated with the standalone business, ramped up by some factor to account for the greater reach of the acquiring company’s sales channel, is the way that the purchase price is usually justified. It is too hard to value technology except as a business. That’s why the venture capital euphemism for selling a company for cents on the dollar is “technology sale.” But more importantly, the business is the validation of the technology. Nobody can tell whether a startup’s technology is any good except by looking to see if anyone is buying it.

However, once the acquisition is done there is an immediate conflict. There is a running business to be kept going. After all that was the justification for the purchase price. It took the whole company to do that before acquisition, so presumably it will take the whole company afterwards. In the short term, the differentiation of the technology rests on its continuing to sell well. But the real reason for the acquisition is often to acquire the base technology and incorporate it into the rest of the product line. The only people who know the technology well enough to do this are the acquired company’s engineering organization. Suddenly they are double booked, developing the product to the plans that underpinned the forward bookings forecast, and working with the acquiring company’s engineers to do the integration.

An example. When I was at Cadence we acquired Cadmos for their signal integrity product SeismIC. plus other stuff in development. Googling back at the press release, I see that a person whose name sounds strangely familiar said:

"Adding CadMOS signal integrity analysis engines to established Cadence analog and digital design solutions provides us with the best correct-by-design timing and signal integrity closure capabilities in the industry," said Paul McLellan, corporate vice-president of custom integrated circuit (IC) products at Cadence.

Except, of course, to realize that vision required the Cadmos engineering team to work full-time on integration. Meanwhile, there is a business going full blast selling the SeismIC standalone. I believe there was also an earnout (part of the acquisition price depends on how much was sold) based on the standalone business only. A difficult balancing act for the engineering managers and myself.

We had similar issues when Cadence acquired Ambit. We needed to integrate the Ambit timing engine (and later the underlying synthesis technology itself) into Cadence’s whole digital product line at the same time as we were trying to give Synopsys a run for their money in the standalone synthesis business. Both of those goals were really important strategically but there was only one set of engineers.

Balancing these two conflicting requirements is probably the hardest aspect to manage of a typical EDA acquisition. It is really important, not just for financial reasons, to maintain the leadership position of the technology in the marketplace. At the same time, integrate that leadership technology so that it is available under-the-hood in other parts of the product line which, in the end, is probably how it will mostly get into customer’s hands. Preserve the differentiation while doing the integration.

Posted by Paul McLellan on August 12, 2009 | Comments (3)

August 13, 2009
In response to: Integration and differentiation
garydpdx commented:

Paul, Brian and Mark - I think that many of your points can also apply to internal reorganizations, i.e., "Tool Z looks to fit better with the offerings of Division B rather than Division A, so let's move them!" Tool Z may need integration work with Division B's offerings (today's comment was brought to you by the letters S, I, L and O ... (-;) but wait ... what about Z's own sales and development roadmap? While no actual money leaves or enters the corporation, the numbers are impacted by changes in marketing teams, their messaging and any sales channel consequences! And sometimes personnel issues.


August 12, 2009
In response to: Integration and differentiation
Mark Gogolewski commented:

Been thinking about this since reading it yesterday. I get Brian's point. However, I expect it to be challenging to quickly ramp up the size of the team if the new engineers are going to have to work deeply in legacy code. So, I do think the team is going to be forced to choose, or suck at both. I think one has to lean towards differentiation over everything else. Customers want integration. But more than that I do believe they pay for differentiation first. So if the new technology is 10x faster, or produces significantly better timing, or can handle 10x code, or make the team 5x productive... all of these are reasons to switch to something new. Plus the new technology has to get adopted by the acquiring company's sales channel. A non-trivial task Paul has written about before. If the new tool is drastically better, that is easier to market and sell. Finally, I guess integration only matters if you are integrating something to last 10 years. And to last 10 years, the strategy and thus the differentiation has to be real, significant, proven, and sold. So I vote differentiation until the motivation for integration is easy, and the time for additional investment of engineers has taken place.


August 12, 2009
In response to: Integration and differentiation
Brian Bailey commented:

If a company believes in a technology that much they should be willing to invest in it - not just in terms of buying the business, but also in the expansion of the engineering team associated with it. Now while this may delay the integration effort somewhat, it will provide a larger base of people who can, after a short learning time, help to accomplish both goals. Now in many cases, the reverse happens. The business that the company acquired was not quite justifying the technology investment, so not only are no additional engineers hired, but some may even be let go. This says they plan to milk the business - keep whatever maintenance revenue stream they can for a while. Maybe they just did it to acquire the engineers or the knowledge that they possess. So there are many reasons why a company may be acquired. If there are problems afterward it is a reflection that the merger was not properly planned or the objectives of the merger were not properly communicated. This is not an engineering problem, it is a management problem that may cause grief to the engineers - sometimes enough to make them leave the company.

POST A COMMENT
Display Name
captcha

Before submitting this form, please type the characters displayed above. Note the letters are case sensitive:

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
About EDN   |   Site Map   |   Contact Us   |   Subscription   |   RSS
© 2012 UBM Electronics. All rights reserved.
Use of this Web site is subject to its Terms of Use | Privacy Policy

Please visit these other UBM Canon sites

UBM Canon | Design News | Test & Measurement World | Packaging Digest | EDN | Qmed | Pharmalive | Appliance Magazine | Plastics Today | Powder Bulk Solids | Canon Trade Shows