Run a site readiness review after an acquisition

An acquisition might add locations faster than an integration team receives reliable records. A street address gives little information about building access, power, current service, network equipment, local contacts, or business activity. Your first review should turn a broad request into a shared fact record. The aim is not a promised design or completion date. The aim is to show what each location needs before a team chooses its next question.

Define readiness in plain terms. A site is ready for a next discussion when enough information exists to assign a useful action. One office might need a facilities contact. Another might need current service records. A third might need a visit because nobody knows where network equipment sits. Treating every office as identical hides these differences. A readiness review should expose them early.

Invite people with different knowledge. The technology integration lead knows internal standards, dependencies, and business priorities. Someone from the acquired operation knows how work happens at a location. A facilities manager, office leader, or local operations contact might fill this role. Each participant need not know every answer. Together, they often identify where records live and who controls access.

Open with a limited outcome. Say, “By the end of this review, we will separate confirmed facts from gaps and give every open question an owner.” Ask permission to note the source beside each answer. Source labels matter. A current service invoice differs from a memory shared by someone who left months ago. A local contact might report a room location accurately while lacking authority over entry. Notes should retain those limits.

Group locations by evidence, not urgency alone. The first group contains information supported by a record or a named local contact. The second holds information missing but likely available through a known person. The third includes offices needing a visit or an external request. These groups support a practical sequence. Your buyer need not solve eight sites before beginning a review for one urgent site with clear records.

Use a readiness sheet with one row for each location. Record site name, address, business use, local contact, access owner, current service source, equipment source, known dependency, open question, question owner, and target check in date. This sheet is a conversation record, not an engineering design. A clear source column stops an assumption from becoming an accepted fact after a few meetings.

Ask about access before discussing equipment. “Who grants entry to the communications room, and what notice does the building require?” A shared building might place a landlord in control of rooms or appointment times. A tenant office might have a local manager with a key but no authority over common infrastructure. These details change who needs a conversation. Replace a vague note such as “check access” with a named person and a specific question.

Ask what business work depends on each location. Keep questions close to daily activity. “Which teams work here? What work stops if present connectivity changes? Are there dates when access or interruption creates a problem?” The answers give planning context without claiming a technical outcome. An office used for occasional meetings needs a different review from an office supporting a customer service group.

Existing service needs evidence. Ask where invoices, agreements, service identifiers, or support contacts reside. An acquired company might use a central finance team, leaving a local office manager with little account detail. Service ordered by a landlord might produce an invoice with limited identifiers. Write “service record not located” instead of guessing from labels on equipment or an old spreadsheet. A visible gap helps the buyer assign an owner.

Equipment questions need equal discipline. Ask who visited the network room recently, who maintains an asset record, and who will confirm whether a device belongs to the acquired company, a landlord, or another provider. A photo, asset list, or local technician report might answer part of the question. Label every source. Do not turn an unverified description into an inventory. A list with uncertainty is more useful than a polished list built from guesses.

A fictional meeting gives this process a shape. Elena, an integration lead, says, “We acquired eight offices and want them on our internal network.” Ravi answers, “Which office has current service records and a building contact today?” Elena identifies the largest office and names its facilities manager. The other seven offices have unclear records. Ravi responds, “We will begin with the largest office, then use its review questions for the remaining requests.” Elena agrees to a staged approach.

Ravi asks the facilities manager about entry, local work patterns, and any person who holds service records. He asks Elena to name a technology contact for internal dependencies. Morgan from finance agrees to search for invoices. Ravi enters three separate owners in the sheet. He does not write “technology and facilities.” A group name hides responsibility. “Morgan will locate service records by September 12” creates a review point.

At the meeting close, read each unresolved item aloud. Ravi says, “Elena will ask the facilities manager about room access. Morgan will look for service records. Luis from operations will confirm which support staff work at this location. We will review responses Tuesday at 10 AM.” Each person hears a limited task and a date. The group avoids an implied commitment around a future network change.

Send the readiness sheet soon after the meeting. Put confirmed facts apart from open questions. If Ravi heard a fact without a record, write “reported by local contact, record pending.” Ask recipients to correct a source note before the next discussion. This request invites correction without blame. A sheet becomes trustworthy through visible adjustments, not through a claim of completeness after one call.

Complications belong in the sheet. Suppose a fictional branch has no local manager and uses a landlord controlled communications room. Record both facts. The immediate task is to locate the landlord contact and ask about entry conditions. A design discussion has no basis yet. When a complication receives a named owner, your buyer sees a next action rather than a blocked location.

Review the sheet the next morning. Look for blank owners, vague sources, and dates without a related event. Turn each weak entry into one focused request. “Morgan, do you have an invoice or carrier contact for the Denver office?” earns a clearer reply than “Any update?” One focused request also makes missing information visible without placing fault on a participant.

In the fictional review, Elena receives the updated sheet on Monday afternoon. Phoenix lacks an access owner. Elena messages the acquired company’s office coordinator, who supplies a landlord contact and states a forty eight hour visit request. Elena adds both facts, records herself as access requester, and asks the landlord for an available entry window. She brings the reply, or the unanswered request, to Tuesday’s review.