Rajeev Khandelwal's M&A and enterprise background provides a setting for an overlooked acquisition question: which technology arrangements keep the target operating? A buyer may understand machinery and customer contracts while discovering late that essential software depends on a wider group licence, an individual developer or an integration whose ownership and support have never been clearly documented by the business.
Map the critical workflow
The review should begin with the activities that cannot stop, such as orders, payroll or production records. Identifying the systems behind them reveals dependencies that a simple software list may miss. A small application can be critical if it transfers data between larger platforms, even though its cost and visibility are minor compared with the main enterprise system.
Check continuity with the relevant providers
Licensing, access and support arrangements need suitable review against the actual transaction. The buyer should know which services can continue, which require consent or replacement and who will manage the transition. Assumptions based on everyday use can be misleading when the software is supplied through a parent company or an arrangement that changes with ownership of the operating business.
Budget for people as well as licences
System knowledge may sit with employees who are not included in the acquired operation or who plan to leave. Training, documentation and temporary support can therefore matter as much as subscription cost. Including those needs early helps the buyer avoid a false choice between delaying the transaction and accepting an unsupported operating environment immediately after completion.
Make the transition a business plan
The technology work should connect to customer continuity, records and management reporting. It is not simply an IT clean-up after the deal. A realistic acquisition case recognises the resources needed to keep the business functioning while ownership changes, preserving the value the buyer intended to acquire rather than allowing an invisible dependency to disrupt it at the point of transfer.
