IT integration protects your EBITDA. Business integration scales it. Most sponsors conflate the two, and pay for it at exit.
Here’s what actually happens post-close on buy-and-build platforms:
One ERP. Inconsistent pricing discipline. Centralized reporting. Decentralized decision rights. “Standardized” processes that behave differently by business unit.
These aren’t system problems. They’re operating model gaps that technology makes visible but cannot fix. And they quietly accumulate between modeled synergies and realized EBITDA, long before exit discussions begin.
The distinction that matters for sponsors:
IT integration primarily protects value; cost takeout, risk reduction, cleaner reporting. That work is necessary. No platform scales without it.
But EBITDA acceleration requires answering different questions:
- How does the platform actually make money; by segment, channel, customer?
- Which decisions are centralized vs. local, and what’s the economic logic?
- Who owns outcomes across Finance, Ops, IT, and GTM when tradeoffs arise?
If these aren’t answered explicitly, IT ends up enabling multiple versions of the business. That complexity resurfaces with the next add-on; faster and more expensively than expected.
The mindset shift for operating partners:
Stop treating IT integration as a workstream. Treat integration as an operating model decision with technology consequences.
The highest-performing platforms align four things in parallel:
- Clear decision rights tied to EBITDA drivers
- End-to-end process design reflecting how value is created
- Systems configured to reinforce the model (not compensate for ambiguity)
- Cross-functional governance with real enforcement.
When these move together, integration becomes a multiplier across add-ons, not a reset after each deal.
How buyers actually test this in diligence:
Secondary buyers underwrite certainty. They want to know the business already runs as a coherent platform; that EBITDA is repeatable without heroics, that margins are consistent across units, that decision rights are explicit rather than personality-driven. Integration gaps show up as QoE adjustments and tighter underwriting assumptions.
Strategic buyers underwrite synergy. They’re asking whether your operating model can plug into theirs without disruption, whether processes are standardized enough to capture cost and revenue synergies without a re-integration effort consuming management attention. Lagging business integration means more conservative synergy assumptions and more purchase price protection mechanisms.
Different buyers. Same conclusion: when IT integration outpaces business integration, buyers price the risk.
The bottom line for ICs:
IT integration checks the box. Business integration determines the multiple.
Sponsors who treat integration as an operating model decision, supported by technology, enter diligence with clarity, credibility, and control.
That’s the difference between explaining results and defending value.
At PIP, we work with deal teams and operating partners to ensure integration decisions stand up to buyer scrutiny, not just internal milestones. If this resonates, let’s talk.
