Fusie- en overnameonderzoek

M&A Research can be a crucial strategy for growth and competitive advantage.

If you are looking to find a potential merger or acquisition candidate, it’s not so easy for several reasons.

• Many potential targets may not know who would be interested in merging with, or acquiring them.
• Others have not even thought about the synergies of a merger or realized that they were worth being acquired.
• Finally, companies that wish to merge or be acquired may not want to make that fact public as it could disrupt their current business. This is unlike an employee actively seeking another job—discretion and confidentiality are common.

How do businesses navigate the complexities of M&A to ensure survival and growth? This question sets the stage for exploring the nuanced world of mergers and acquisitions research, a field that has become the compass for navigating the turbulent waters of the global marketplace.

Mergers and Acquisitions Target Identification: How Industrial Acquirers Build Winning Pipelines

The best industrial acquirers treat mergers and acquisitions target identification as a continuous intelligence discipline, not a transaction event. They build proprietary pipelines years before bankers arrive with pitch books. They know which competitor’s installed base is aging, which family-owned supplier faces succession, and which bolt-on closes a capability gap before the seller knows it is for sale.

This is the work that separates compounders from serial overpayers. The frameworks below reflect what SIS International Research has observed across four decades of buy-side mandates in industrial markets.

Why Proprietary Sourcing Beats Auction Processes in Industrial M&A

Auction-led deals carry a structural premium. Sellers run competitive processes precisely to compress diligence windows and inflate bids. Strategic acquirers who source proprietary targets pay meaningfully less and integrate faster because the thesis was built before the negotiation began.

According to SIS International Research, industrial acquirers with the strongest five-year return on invested capital share one operational habit: they maintain a live target map of 80 to 200 private companies per platform thesis, refreshed quarterly through expert interviews and primary intelligence rather than database scrapes.

The map is not a list. It is a living document tracking ownership structure, customer concentration, aftermarket revenue mix, installed base age, and key engineering talent. When a triggering event hits — a founder’s health change, a private equity hold-period maturity, a tariff exposure — the acquirer is already at the table.

The Four-Layer Framework for Industrial Target Identification

Effective mergers and acquisitions target identification operates across four analytical layers. Each layer filters the universe and sharpens the thesis.

Source: SIS International Research

Most corporate development teams excel at layer one and stall at layer three. They cannot see ownership readiness because it lives in human conversations: a controller’s offhand comment about the founder’s grandchildren, a regional sales manager’s note that the owner skipped the trade show. This is where primary research moves the work.

Where Industrial Acquirers Find Differentiated Signal

The sharpest acquirers in industrial markets — Illinois Tool Works, Roper Technologies, Constellation Software, Dover, and the Berkshire Hathaway industrial portfolio — share a sourcing model built on operator networks rather than intermediary relationships. They cultivate former plant managers, retired channel executives, and subject-matter engineers who surface targets the data providers miss.

SIS International Research builds these networks through structured B2B expert interviews across procurement, engineering, and aftermarket service functions. A typical industrial buy-side engagement involves 30 to 60 conversations with channel partners, OEM procurement leads, and former employees of candidate targets. The signal density is an order of magnitude higher than what database screens produce.

In SIS International’s competitive intelligence work for a Fortune 500 industrial conglomerate, structured interviews with distributor principals across three regions surfaced four founder-led targets actively considering exits, none of which appeared in any subscription deal database. Two became proprietary acquisitions at multiples 2.5 turns below comparable auction transactions.

The Diligence Questions That Predict Integration Success

Target identification quality is measured at year three post-close, not at signing. The acquirers who compound capital ask different questions during the screening phase.

• Customer concentration durability: Are the top 10 accounts contractually anchored, or are they relationship-anchored to a departing founder?
• Installed base economics: What is the attach rate of aftermarket revenue, and how does total cost of ownership compare against the next-best alternative?
• Engineering bench depth: Does product roadmap execution depend on two people, or on documented systems?
• Supplier qualification risk: How many tier-one customers require requalification under change of control?
• Reshoring feasibility: If the target’s footprint is offshore, what is the realistic cost and timeline to dual-source?

These questions cannot be answered from a confidential information memorandum. They require ethnographic site visits, anonymized customer interviews, and channel triangulation conducted before the LOI, not after.

How Macro Conditions Reshape the Industrial Target Pool

The current industrial M&A environment favors disciplined acquirers with patient capital. Higher rates have compressed sponsor-driven competition. Tariff volatility has surfaced supply chain vulnerabilities that change strategic value calculations. Energy transition mandates have created acquisition urgency around electrification suppliers, battery thermal management, and grid-adjacent components.

SIS International’s analysis across industrial buy-side engagements indicates that acquirers winning today’s proprietary deals are those who reframed their target universe around three vectors: reshoring beneficiaries, aftermarket revenue compounders, and engineering teams with electrification IP. The companies still screening on legacy revenue multiples alone are losing the best assets.

Building the Internal Capability

The strongest corporate development functions blend three capabilities: a thesis-driven sourcing team, an embedded primary research function, and a post-merger integration office that feeds learning back into target screening. The integration office is the part most companies underweight. Its pattern recognition — which target attributes predicted synergy realization, which destroyed value — is the most valuable input to the next deal.

Acquirers who treat mergers and acquisitions target identification as a continuous capability, rather than a project activated when capital is available, build durable advantage. The pipeline compounds. The thesis sharpens. The relationships mature into proprietary access.

Key Questions

For VP-level corporate development leaders evaluating their target identification process, three questions clarify where investment yields the highest return: How many of our last five acquisitions were proprietary versus auction? What percentage of our current pipeline came from primary research versus intermediaries? Which integration learnings from year-three reviews are now embedded in our screening criteria?

Over SIS Internationaal

SIS Internationaal biedt kwantitatief, kwalitatief en strategisch onderzoek. Wij bieden data, tools, strategieën, rapporten en inzichten voor besluitvorming. Wij voeren ook interviews, enquêtes, focusgroepen en andere marktonderzoeksmethoden en -benaderingen uit. Neem contact met ons op voor uw volgende marktonderzoeksproject.