Engineers working in companies need clear, operational foundations for any merger that aims to create long-term value rather than short-lived momentum. When those foundations are ignored, even deals that seem airtight can lose stability before the integration truly begins.
Yet many acquisitions don't check whether those core technical basics are set. Many teams, especially those unchecked, operate without reliable security checks, structured deployment processes, or documented workflows, leaving large parts of the platform exposed to risk. These gaps make the infrastructure difficult and expensive to maintain, as well as nearly impossible to integrate without disruption. As a result, the early months after closing can become dominated by avoidable problems rather than planned progress.
This was the environment software engineer Ralf Cheung stepped into when he joined the post-acquisition team at a multinational transportation company. Tasked with improving its internal processes, one that looked smooth on the surface, he soon found himself dealing with critical weaknesses that'd affect every decision during the integration — giving him a firstview understanding of what it takes for companies and investors to keep these problems at bay from the start.
Realizing Technical Risk Hidden In Plain Sight
Ralf Cheung built his career through years of hands-on product development in tech companies like Uber, first as a serial founder and later as an engineer dealing with complex, cross-regional systems. His background positioned him to quickly assess the true condition of the platform he was brought in to help integrate.
What he found was an engineering environment operating without the most fundamental safeguards. More than 500 security issues were still unresolved, including exposed API keys sitting openly in the front end and no rate limiting to stop repeated attempts at accessing accounts — problems that left the platform vulnerable to brute-force attacks.
The system also lacked a test environment, a reliable CI/CD pipeline, and even basic documentation to explain how anything worked. Engineers were deploying code directly on a shared development server, turning routine updates into a risky process that could break the platform without warning.
"We encountered major reporting failures directly attributable to the lack of documented procedures for creating new capacity," he explains.
The consequences surfaced almost immediately. Without testing infrastructure, each deployment carried a genuine chance of breaking live functionality, forcing teams to launch new updates with no safety net. They also dealt with hidden structural weaknesses that made integration efforts slower and further highlighted how vulnerable the system had become after years of accumulated debt. The lack of engineering discipline threatened the stability of these systems and their ability to expand beyond its existing limits.
The Hidden Costs That Come With Technical Issues
This lack of documentation quickly became a financial burden rather than a simple inconvenience. Every attempt to expand capacity triggered unexpected outages, turning routine scaling into costly rounds of trial and error. Hours that should have gone toward integration progress were instead spent diagnosing preventable failures, increasing costs long before the platform was ready for consolidation.
This isn't unique to this one acquisition. Industry research shows that a large share of integrations fail to deliver the value projected at signing, largely because engineering realities remain unseen until teams are deep into consolidation. In fact, a recent PwC report shows that that up to 70% of post-merger integrations fall short for this very reason, underscoring how technical and cultural gaps quietly undermine otherwise sound business logic.
Ralf Cheung's Leadership Efforts
Cheung began fixing the integration by setting specific tasks for each team member so everyone knew who was responsible for what, removing the confusion that had been slowing the team down. He wrote down steps on how to launch, report, and do regular daily engineering work so people in different locations could finally follow the same instructions. He also set up regular check-ins between teams so they weren't relying on scattered messages or assumptions to make important decisions.
He spent time with engineers one-on-one, showing them how to use tools and practices they hadn't worked with before and encouraging to get things done at their own pace as long as they met the required deadlines. As these changes took hold, the team stopped scrambling to solve one surprise after another and began working in a steadier, more organized way.
These clearer routines made it easier for the engineering group to deliver work without constant setbacks or confusion.
Setting Up A Unified Internal Culture
Even with the new routines in place, cultural differences continued to slow the team down. Many engineers remained hesitant on what tools to collectively incorporate, so important tasks slipped through the cracks when updates weren't recorded. Team discussions often felt one-sided because some members weren't used to speaking openly about problems, which further opened the door for potential misunderstandings and added friction to already-sensitive moments.
To counteract, Cheung arranged visits to the company's India office so the team could see how a well-run engineering group worked day to day. Spending time with experienced teams gave them a clearer picture of how organized processes looked in practice and helped ease the hesitation they had carried since the beginning. As such, Cheung was able to draft plans that connected the technical fixes his team was carrying out to how fit into larger business goals, giving everyone a clearer view of what they were building toward.
"None of the engineers had worked in a tech company before," he recalls. "Visiting our India office showed them how established teams really operate."
What Investors Should Consider During Acquisitions
Cheung's experience revealed patterns that appear in many acquisitions, especially when fast-growing products have been built without long-term stability in mind. The challenges he uncovered show investors and executives what to watch for when deciding whether a platform can actually handle the demands that come after a deal closes.
- Technical debt: Exposed API keys, loosely dealing with user data, and the absence of even basic security checks often point to rushed development that will lead to greater risks the moment the product is scaled.
- Key person dependency: When only one or two former team members know how key elements of the system work (and more crucially, that knowledge isn't written down) the entire platform becomes vulnerable the day those individuals leave.
- Scaling bottlenecks: If server costs rise almost one-to-one with new customers, it usually means the system was never designed to grow, turning expansion into a cost burden instead of a business advantage.
Taken together, these lessons show why strong numbers on paper don't always reveal how much effort will be required to keep a product running once it changes hands. Ralf Cheung's experience made clear that some of the biggest risks are buried in the code, but others, potentially more dangerous, are present in the culture supporting that code.
