Make, buy, partner or acquire — proven before the letter of intent.
The questions behind the question:
- What is the synergies' actual value, simulated at the level of each site, line and division rather than an average of a cost base?
- If we acquire this company, which of the combined sites prevails, and what does the integration really cost in year one and year three?
- We are carving out a division. What does the remaining company look like, and what stranded cost stays behind?
- The offset obligation is fixed. What is the cheapest compliant way to meet it?
Why it is hard today
Synergies are estimated top-down and defended bottom-up
A percentage is applied to a cost base, then teams spend six months discovering which parts of it were impossible.
The combined system is never modelled
Two footprints, two supplier bases, two customer commitments. What matters is the constraints of the merged entity, and that model does not exist on either side.
Diligence is short and the model takes long
The window is weeks. Building a proper model is weeks. So the model does not get built, and the number in the board pack is an assumption.
The post-merger plan starts from zero
The diligence model, such as it was, does not follow into the integration implementation.
What Paradygma changes
Synergies at the level of the asset
Which sites consolidate, which lines transfer, what capacity survives, what the transfer costs and how long it takes — modelled, not assumed.
Both sides of the trade
Make, buy, partner and acquire evaluated against the same constraints and the same horizon, so the comparison is real.
Fast enough for a diligence window
Four to six days to a first live model, followed by a few weeks to fine-tune.
One model from diligence to integration
The model that produced the case becomes the model that runs the integration, which is also what makes the case verifiable afterwards.