What 25 Acquisitions Taught Me About Operational Consistency Clio

This article is part of a series sponsored by Fulcrum.

I have been involved in over 25 agency acquisitions over the course of my career, first as VP of Agency Operations at a large independent brokerage through a positive growth period, and most recently helping brokerages redesign the operational infrastructure that integrations tend to expose. Financial due diligence varies in all of these transactions. Concerns about operational readiness vary even more.

What remains consistent is the pattern. Organizations that integrate smoothly share certain characteristics that, with enough repetition, become fairly predictable. I think that at a time when consolidation in the independent brokerage market is as active as it has been in years, these tips are worth sharing with anyone currently developing or considering an acquisition-led growth strategy.

Pattern 1: The best acquirees have become standardized

The institutions that are easiest to integrate are rarely those with the most advanced technology. They are the ones with the most consistent process. Every account manager handles renewals the same way. Policy data is stored in the same location and in the same format throughout the book. New accounts are added in a clear sequence, rather than varying by manufacturer or office location.

This consistency makes everything that follows faster and more efficient. It’s easier to train teams on new systems because the underlying processes are already clear. Merged book reporting is clearer because the data has been maintained according to common standards. When something needs to be reviewed or reconstructed, the records are there.

Operational consistency also makes it easier for institutions to value accurately. When workflows vary widely across a team, the true cost of running a business is harder to assess. Acquirers who carefully observe process discipline and financial metrics consistently find fewer surprises after the deal closes.

Mode 2: Key person risks quickly emerge

In almost every integration I’ve been through, the departure of at least one person caused real disruption. Sometimes it is a senior account manager who manages the relationship with the largest account. Sometimes office managers run operational infrastructure out of personal habit and institutional memory rather than documented processes.

Acquisitions bring uncertainty, and experienced people sometimes leave before the transition is complete. When the knowledge that keeps operations running resides in that person’s memory rather than in the system, the team immediately senses a gap. Accounts that have been running smoothly require more active management. Questions that would have had clear answers in a well-documented operation required searching through inboxes and shared drives.

Agencies that handle this well, consciously or unconsciously, reduce their reliance on key people before a transaction by establishing a process that any trained team member can follow. Knowledge lives in the workflow, and when the people leave, the workflow remains.

Mode 3: Two workflows running in parallel are a temporary state that tends to persist.

The consolidation period is the period of highest operational risk, for one simple reason. With two organizations with two different ways of doing things now operating under the same roof, aligning them takes longer than most integration timelines assume.

What I see over and over again is that parallel workflows intended as a short-term bridge have a way of becoming permanent. Acquiring a company has its own process. Acquired companies have their own processes. Both teams were busy, integration projects competed with the real work of running the business, and standardization work was delayed. Six months later, the book has grown, but the two operating models are still running in parallel.

Avoid this integration that treats workflow alignment as a defined workflow with an owner and timeline, starting before closing rather than after. They decide early on which processes will become standard, communicate them clearly, and build accountability for adoption into the transition plan.

Mode 4: The acquirer’s operational readiness is as important as the target

It’s easy to focus entirely on the operations of the acquired institution. Acquiring a company’s infrastructure is equally important. A brokerage absorbs a fifth or tenth agency while still operating on informal processes and tribal knowledge, which makes each trade add its own operational risk.

Companies that grow through acquisitions while maintaining operational discipline have established replicable models before embarking on acquisitions. Standardized onboarding, documented workflows, clear handover protocols, consistent data practices. Each new organization has a clear structure that absorbs the changes brought about by the acquired company.

For brokerages committed to acquisition-led growth, this is a worthy investment first. Deal flow will come. The question is whether the operation is prepared to absorb the consequences that will follow.

Kathryn Lerch is an Insurance Solutions Engineer at Fulcrum, an AI-driven workflow platform built specifically for insurance brokerages. She has 18 years of experience redesigning service workflows, leading technology implementations, and scaling operations across multiple locations, including overseeing operations through more than 25 acquisitions.

theme
mergers and acquisitions