In the installation industry, the value of a company lies largely on the road and in the heads of technicians, not in a building or a production line. A merger between two installation companies is therefore at its core a merger of schedules, service contracts and the relationship between a technician and his regular customers. Where in a factory a machine keeps running the same way under a new owner, at an installation company the daily practice changes almost immediately: who gets which route, which warehouse delivers which part, and which phone number the customer still calls.
The ratio between fixed and variable work is decisive here. Maintenance contracts and emergency call-out services require predictability; new-build projects and renovations require flexibility. An integration that disrupts the fixed stream in order to streamline the project side hits precisely the part of the revenue that was most certain. That makes the sequence of integrating more important than the speed of it.
The two companies almost certainly each have their own scheduling system, their own division of territories, and their own way of allocating emergency jobs. Merging that scheduling is not just an IT question; it affects the distribution of work between people who do not yet know each other and do not know each other's customers. A synergy baseline that looks right on paper can get stuck in practice because a technician suddenly has two extra hours of travel time, or because a territory that used to have one point of contact now has two.
The question that should be asked here by default is whether joint scheduling is even the right step, or whether two schedules running side by side work better for longer. Not every territory benefits from merging on the same timeline, and that difference should be part of the Day 1 and Day 100 plan rather than assumed.
A large part of the value of an installation company lies in ongoing maintenance contracts, often with notice periods and dedicated points of contact. In a merger, the question is not only which contracts exist, but who the customer calls when something goes wrong, and whether that is still the same person after the merger. Changes to dedicated points of contact are a well-known reason why maintenance customers switch to a competitor, and that consideration differs materially from what applies in professional services, where the relationship more often hinges on an advisor than on a technician on site.
The decision list of the integration office should explicitly state here what is and is not merged: one central phone number, yes, but the dedicated technician per customer, perhaps not, in any case not on day one.
Purchasing advantage is often the first synergy mentioned: two companies buying the same pipes, boilers or cables should get a better price together. But supplier relationships in the installation industry are often personal and based on years of payment history and availability during scarcity. Cancelling an existing supplier to switch to the other party's supplier can turn out more costly in the short term than it appears, especially when delivery times play a role that is not stated in the contract.
This dependency between procurement and material availability on the construction site is a different type of risk than the inventory dependency seen at wholesale companies, where the bottleneck is more often in the warehouse than with an external supplier. The dependency overview of the integration office should make this relationship visible before cuts are made on the procurement line.
Installation work is bound by certifications: electrical, gas, refrigeration, aerial platforms. Merging teams without a clear overview of who holds which certificate leads at best to scheduling errors and at worst to a technician being sent to a job for which he is not qualified. That risk is comparable to what applies in the healthcare sector, where qualifications and diplomas equally determine who may do which work, and where merging without that overview immediately becomes a compliance question.
The standard question here should be whether integrating teams needs to happen faster than the time required to get certification, training and work allocation in order. Often the answer is that merging more slowly destroys less value than merging quickly.
The three generators and the integration office of FTE TO AI do not offer a ready-made answer for the installation industry, nor a track record to point to. What they do is structure the questions: which synergy is realistic, what happens on day one, what can wait until day one hundred, and which dependency between scheduling, contracts and materials is otherwise overlooked. Anyone who knows this industry will recognize that most risks do not arise from unwillingness, but from the absence of a place where these questions come together.
This functionality is still under construction. Anyone who wants to use this once it becomes available can sign up for the waiting list.
An integration in the installation industry is not only about which systems merge, but also about how much of the underlying work — scheduling, time registration, material orders, reporting to customers — continues to be done manually after the merger, or not. The work scan of FTE TO AI calculates per task which part of it can be taken over by AI, providing a different starting point for the question of how much capacity a merged organization truly needs.
Vraag maar wat er op Day 1 moet staan, of wat integreren juist kapotmaakt.
Answers come from this site’s knowledge base. Not tailored advice, and not a scan of your company.