A blanket 25% G&A savings assumption can now be justified by Raven findings
Cut the duplication.
Not the people who carry the value.
In a merger or acquisition, headcount lists and org charts show titles and reporting lines, not who actually carries the work, or how much of it AI now does. Raven maps where value concentrates, department by department, so deal teams can remove genuine duplication, size synergies they can defend, and keep the load-bearing people who make the combined company work.
Why headcount lists mislead in an integration
Org charts lie
Titles and reporting lines don't show who actually carries the work or who is quietly holding the combined organization together.
Synergies get missed
More than 70% of integrations fall short of their synergy targets. The gap between the assumption and the reality is almost always organizational, not financial.
Overlap isn't always waste
Two teams in one box can be doing different, load-bearing work. Cutting based on headcount alone misses that distinction every time.
Cut wrong, value walks
Lose a load-bearing contributor and output drops before anyone notices. By then the damage is already in the numbers.
The deal that almost cut the wrong people.
A PE firm was three weeks from close on a 45-person professional services target. Strong pipeline. Good client relationships. Financials and management presentation both supported the thesis.
A Raven analysis run pre-close told a different story.
The sales capability was real, but almost entirely concentrated in two individuals whose earn-out expired at close. Thin documentation. Fragmented hand-offs. No repeatable process that would survive their departure.
The deal team didn't kill the deal. They restructured it.
Two things went into the term sheet that hadn't been there before, retention through year one and an operating partner workplan to build process documentation before the earn-out expired.
Raven didn't make the decision. It gave the deal team the picture they needed to make a better one.
25%
The synergy case your investment commitee can actually defend
Most integration synergy cases start with a top-down assumption, a blanket percentage of G&A that the deal team expects to remove. That assumption is hard to defend because it's not grounded in evidence about which functions are actually duplicating effort and which ones are doing load-bearing work the combined organization needs.
Raven changes that picture. By measuring actual contributor influence across six business phases, department by department, Raven gives deal teams a bottom-up synergy case built on evidence rather than assumption.
Raven works across every phase of the deal
Pre-Close Diligence
See the organization before you own it.
Map where value concentrates in the target. Size synergies you can actually defend. Surface concentration risk before it becomes a post-close surprise.
-
Benchmark SG&A vs peers - size the synergy case for IC
-
Identify load-bearing contributors before the earn-out is structured
-
Surface AI dependency risk in the target's core workflows
Post-Close Integration
Cut the duplication. Keep the value.
Map both organizations department by department. Separate real duplication from complementary capability. Flatten safely without losing what made the target worth buying.
-
Target functions that duplicate vs drive output
-
Keep load-bearing contributors visible through the integration
-
Build the combined org on evidence, not org chart assumptions
Ongoing Portfolio
Confirm the thesis is holding.
Re-run Raven on a schedule. Track whether operating partner work is producing visible organizational change. Catch deterioration before it shows up in the numbers.
-
Objective contribution signal for review and reorg decisions
-
Track AI adoption across the portfolio as a trend
-
Early warning before financial covenants are triggered
1
2
3
Remove duplication. Keep value. Today vs with Raven.
Today
Basis for decisions
Duplication
Key people
Synergy case
Continuity risk
Org charts, headcount lists, and titles - what the structure looks like on paper
Inferred from job titles - two people with the same title assumed to be doing the same work
"Experienced team" asserted in the management presentation - no structured evidence behind it
Top-down percentage assumption - hard to defend to IC without department-level evidence
Found after the cut - when output drops and the damage is already visible in the numbers
Raven
Influence on the work both organizations actually produce - what the structure looks like in practice
Seen at the role, process, and phase level - real duplication separated from complementary capability
Load-bearing contributors surfaced by influence on finished work - regardless of title or seniority
Evidenced department by department - a synergy case IC can interrogate and defend
Flagged before you move - in time to restructure the earn-out, add retention provisions, or reprice
Built for every seat at the deal table
Private Equity Deal Teams
Use Raven pre-close to benchmark SG&A against peers, size the synergy case for IC, and surface concentration risk before it's priced into the deal. Post-close use the trend line to confirm operating partner work is producing visible organizational change and catch deterioration before it shows up in the financial covenants.
Corporate Development Teams
Use Raven to understand what you're actually buying before you close, not just the financials but the organizational reality underneath them. Which functions carry the value. Where the duplication genuinely is. What the combined organization looks like before the integration plan is written.
.jpg)
Investment Banks and M&A Advisors
Use Raven to add an organizational evidence layer to the diligence file that no financial analysis produces. Give your deal teams a defensible, reproducible read on operational concentration and AI dependency and give your clients an intelligence layer no competing advisor at the table can match.