EXECUTIVE LEADERSHIP · INTERIM PMI & CARVE-OUT DIRECTOR
An Interim Integration or Carve-Out Director with authority across both organisations.
CE Interim appoints proven Interim Integration and Carve-Out Directors to take control when a transaction has closed, the synergy case is intact on paper, and execution has stalled between two organisations that do not yet know who decides.
Confidential from first contact. A vetted, mandate-matched executive ready to start within 72 hours of the completed mandate brief.
The reporting line
BOARD · INVESTOR · STEERING COMMITTEE
INTERIM INTEGRATION OR CARVE-OUT DIRECTOR
ACQUIRING ORGANISATION | ACQUIRED ORGANISATION
Finance · Operations · Systems · People · Commercial
1,500+
Mandates delivered per year across the alliance
90+
Operating partners around the world
30+
Countries covered
95%
Cross-border mandates
72 hours
From brief to mission start
Definition
What is an Interim PMI or Carve-Out Director?
An Interim PMI and Carve-Out Director is an experienced executive appointed for a defined period to own the execution of an integration or a separation. The mandate covers governance, workstream sequencing, dependency management, benefits ownership and Day One readiness, with decision authority across both organisations rather than advisory input to either.
On paper, integration looks straightforward: synergy targets, functional workstreams, day-one checklists. Execution can depart quickly from that script. Existing leadership stays but authority shifts. Nobody is sure who decides. Systems launch before teams are ready. Governance becomes a reporting exercise rather than a decision-making one.
These are not process failures. They are leadership vacuums, and by the time integration pain surfaces, value is already being lost through delay, duplication and unresolved dependencies.
Appointment triggers
When businesses appoint an Interim Integration or Carve-Out Director
01
The deal has closed and nobody owns what happens next
The steering committee meets. Workstream leads report. No single person has the authority to decide between two functions that disagree, so the decisions wait
02
Day One is fixed and readiness is not
A legal completion date is set. The processes that must work on day one, order to cash, payroll, planning, customer service, are not yet proven, and the date will not move.
03
A carve-out has to stand on its own
A separated business needs its own systems, its own finance function and its own operating model, while continuing to serve customers from infrastructure it does not own.
04
The transitional services clock is running
The transitional services agreement sets critical service dates, dependencies and commercial terms. Extension can increase cost or create additional exposure depending on the agreement, so every service schedule is something the business must stand up before its exit date.
05
The synergy case has not become a plan
Targets exist and nobody owns them. There is no pipeline, no named accountability and no way to tell whether a saving has been realised or merely forecast
06
Systems were integrated before the operation was stable
A platform or reporting change has been pushed through while production, service or finance were still recovering from the transaction, and both are now at risk.
07
Two cultures are producing polite paralysis
Meetings are constructive, decisions are not implemented, and both organisations are protecting their way of working. Governance has become a reporting exercise rather than a decision-making one.
08
Separation and integration are running at once
A business is being carved out of one group and into another simultaneously, with both programmes competing for the same functional capacity and the same people.
Is this the right seat?
Does the situation require an Interim Integration Director?
The determining question is whether the integration needs an owner with authority across both organisations, or whether it needs a function fixed inside one of them.
Appoint an Interim Integration or Carve-Out Director when:
- Decisions are stalling because no one person can make them across both sides.
- Day One is fixed and readiness has to be driven rather than tracked.
- A transitional services agreement sets a schedule the business is behind.
- The synergy case needs converting into owned, measurable actions.
- Separation and integration have to be sequenced against each other.
Decision rule
When the transaction timetable is set and the execution risk is ownership rather than analysis, this is the appropriate appointment.
When a different role is the right one
Where the integration problem is specifically financial, two ledgers, two reporting calendars, an unevidenced synergy case, an Interim CFO resolves it inside the finance function.
Where the operational models have to merge across sites, an Interim COO carries the authority.
Where the acquired business has no functioning leadership at all, an Interim CEO is the appointment and integration follows from it.
Where the workforce dimension is the risk, an Interim HR Director leads it.
CE Interim defines the mandate first and recommends the role second.
Role comparison
Which role does the business need?
Scroll the table sideways →
| Interim Integration Director | Interim CEO | Interim CFO | M&A advisory | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scope | The integration or separation programme | The acquired business | The finance integration | The plan |
| Authority sits | Across both organisations | Inside one business | Inside one function | With the client throughout |
| Owns | Sequencing, dependencies, benefits, Day One | The business result | Ledger, reporting, synergy evidence | The recommendation |
| Appointed when | Nobody owns execution | The business lacks a leader | The numbers cannot be merged | Before the deal |
| Ends when | The operating model is stable and handed over | Permanent leadership arrives | The close runs cleanly | The report is delivered |
| Time to start | Within 72 hours of the brief | Within 72 hours of the brief | Within 72 hours of the brief | Depends on scope and engagement |
Interim Integration Director
Interim CEO
Interim CFO
M&A advisory
Failure modes
How these appointments fail
The integration is sequenced by organisation chart instead of by deadline.
Workstreams are ordered by function because that is how the business is structured. In a carve-out the actual schedule is set by the transitional services agreement: every service the seller provides has an exit date, and extension can increase cost or create additional exposure depending on the agreement. Sequencing against exits rather than the organisation chart helps prevent avoidable service extensions and prolonged dependency on the seller.
Systems are integrated before the operation can absorb it.
Integrating systems before the operation is ready can disrupt the activity the synergy case depends on. The sequencing decision should therefore be based on operational readiness rather than on a fixed assumption that earlier is better. This ordering decision is consequential in an industrial integration and it belongs to one accountable person.
A steering committee is treated as an owner.
Governance without a decision-maker becomes reporting. Workstream leads escalate, the committee notes the escalation, and the decision returns to the same two functions who disagreed. Value leaks while unresolved decisions circulate between functions without an accountable decision-maker.
Separation and integration are run as two programmes.
Where a business is being carved out of one group and into another, both programmes draw on the same functional capacity and the same people. Run separately they compete. Run as one dependency system with a single cadence they become steerable.
Scope of authority
What an Interim Integration Director mandate should include
A named sponsor and decision space, agreed before the start.
Whether the executive reports to the acquirer’s board, the sponsor or a steering committee determines what can be settled without escalation. Where two organisations disagree, referral upward is the failure this appointment exists to prevent.
Sequencing authority.
The right to decide what happens in which order, including delaying a system, reporting or process change until the operation can absorb it. That authority is central to protecting business continuity during integration, and it must sit with one person.
Authority across both organisations.
Direction of workstream leads on both sides, not only on the acquirer’s. Authority limited to only one side of the programme leaves critical cross-organisational decisions unresolved, so the mandate needs decision rights that reach across both organisations.
Ownership of the dependency view.
One issue queue, one dependency map, one cadence. Where separation and integration run in parallel, they are governed as a single system rather than as competing programmes.
Benefits accountability.
Ownership of the synergy pipeline, with named owners, validated actions and a measurement that distinguishes realised from forecast.
Day One scope authority.
The right to define which processes must work on day one and to protect capacity for them, which necessarily means the right to say what does not happen yet.
Authority note
Authority must be proportional to the decisions the mandate requires in its first thirty days. In an integration, an unmade decision does not wait: the two organisations continue operating separately and the gap becomes permanent.
Statutory responsibility, scope and cover
Statutory responsibility.
Where the mandate requires it, the executive may receive defined signature authority within the programme’s scope, delegated statutory duties or, where formally appointed and permitted by the local corporate structure, a statutory position. The scope is agreed before the start rather than assumed. In a carve-out, a separated entity may also require an accountable officer before permanent leadership is in place.
Scope is agreed before the executive starts.
The client, CE Interim and the executive define duties, boundaries and signature limits in writing.
Insurance is arranged per mandate.
Executives carry their own professional liability and directors’ and officers’ cover. On some mandates the client provides or contributes to it. CE Interim and every member of the Valtus Alliance carries its own cover as well.
Mandate arc
How an integration or carve-out mandate unfolds
This programme runs to Day One and to service exit dates, not to a calendar.
01
Before Day One
Scope what must work
Define the small number of processes that have to function on day one and protect capacity for them. Build the dependency view across both organisations. Read the transitional services schedule as a project plan and map every exit date. Establish the cadence, the escalation route and who decides.
02
Day One to the first exits
Stabilise and start burning down
Hold run-the-business performance while the programme runs. Begin standing up the capabilities that replace transitional services, in the order the exit dates require. Convert the synergy case into a validated pipeline with named owners. Surface critical issues early through a working escalation route.
03
Through the exits to steady state
Integrate what is ready
Sequence the deeper integration work, systems, reporting and operating model, against operational readiness rather than against enthusiasm. Retire the programme structure as functions take ownership.
INTEGRATION MANDATE · 9 TO 18 MONTHS
In CE Interim’s experience, the opening weeks are used to establish one decision cadence, one dependency view and one escalation route. Total duration depends on the transaction structure, operational readiness, the transitional-services schedule and the scale of the integration.
CARVE-OUT MANDATE · TO THE LAST SERVICE EXIT
Where a business is standing alone, the horizon is set by the transitional services agreement rather than by readiness.
Talk to a Partner about the mandate before the situation defines it for you.
Outcomes and handover
What effective integration leadership should achieve
Day One holds
The processes that had to work on day one worked, and run-the-business performance did not degrade while the programme ran.
One decision route
Both organisations escalate to the same place and get an answer, rather than to two places and get two.
Exits made, not allowed to drift
Transitional services are replaced against the agreed schedule rather than extended by default.
Benefits owned
The synergy case has become a pipeline with names against it and a measurement that distinguishes realised from forecast.
An operating model, not a project
The combined or separated business runs on a structure it can sustain rather than on a programme office.
Handover
Clean documentation, team alignment and a stable operating model, transferred to named people inside the business. You choose whether that is a permanent handover or continued interim support.
Who we send
The Interim Integration and Carve-Out Directors we appoint
Has run an integration to a fixed Day One.
Not advised on one. Has carried accountability for a date that could not move, with customer-facing processes that could not be allowed to degrade as it approached.
Has managed a transitional services exit.
Knows that the agreement creates critical dates, dependencies and commercial constraints, and has stood up replacement capability against those exit dates. Has also handled extension or renewal decisions where the agreement created additional cost or exposure.
Has held authority across two organisations at once.
Directing workstream leads on the acquirer’s side and the acquired side, neither of whom report to them, and getting a decision when the two disagree. Experience directing both sides matters because critical integration decisions often sit between the two organisations rather than wholly inside either one.
Has said no to a go-live.
Has delayed an integration milestone where operational readiness did not support it, and defended the sequencing decision to a steering committee. Sequencing judgement is central to this seat.
Has carried a synergy number, not reported on one.
Has owned a benefits case with names against each line and a measurement that distinguished realised from forecast, in front of an investor who was checking.
CE Interim works through more than 90 operating partners across the Valtus Alliance, in over 30 countries. Where a workstream requires additional specialist leadership, CE Interim can draw from the wider Valtus Alliance network.
The appointment model
From confidential briefing to appointment
01
Situation briefing
A Partner conversation under NDA. Where the transaction stands, what has stalled, what Day One requires, and what authority can be delegated across both organisations.
02
Mandate definition and challenge-specific assessment
CE Interim defines the scope, the sponsor, the decision space and the first objectives, then interviews each executive for this transaction and this stage rather than against a generic integration profile.
03
Presentation, appointment and governance
You receive a small number of genuinely relevant executives, not a CV list. Weekly Partner check-ins and milestone tracking follow, and additional specialists can be deployed midstream where a workstream needs one.
Cross-border strain
Why cross-border integrations are harder to govern
What the acquirer needs
- Its standards, systems and reporting cadence actually adopted
- To be told a milestone is unachievable before it is missed
- One view of progress across both organisations
What the acquired business needs
- Someone who understands which group standards are workable locally
- Decisions taken close enough to the operation to be right
- Not to be integrated faster than it can keep serving customers
The plan is written where the acquirer sits and executed where the business operates. Local constraints may not be visible in the central programme until they affect execution, so the integration leader needs enough credibility on both sides to surface them early and to be told the truth by each.
Corridors we work in most often
Situation modules
Typical integration and carve-out mandates
Post-Merger Integration
The transaction has closed and execution has stalled between two organisations that do not yet know who decides. The mandate is to establish ownership, sequence the work and hold run-the-business performance while it happens.
Carve-Out and Separation
A business must stand alone against a deadline set by the transaction, while still running on infrastructure it does not own. The mandate is sequenced against transitional service exit dates.
Enterprise-Critical Transformation Programmes
A systems or reporting integration has been pushed ahead of operational readiness. The mandate is to re-sequence it against what the operation can absorb.
Governance, Visibility and Control
The synergy case exists and nobody owns it. The mandate is to convert targets into a pipeline with names, actions and a measurement that survives scrutiny.
Sector environments
Where CE Interim appoints integration and carve-out leadership
Primary sectors
Transaction environments
Ownership environments
Sector understanding matters. The defining selection criterion is comparable leadership responsibility in a comparable situation, in a comparable ownership environment.
Case evidence
Integration mandates in practice
Global materials group · Present in more than thirty countries · Intervention in Czechia · Integration into an existing East European cluster
Acquired Czech entity brought into a European cluster
Situation
A recently acquired Czech business had to be brought into the group’s existing regional structure.
Mandate
Financial consolidation, monthly reporting, governance and treasury, alongside the cross-cultural work that determines whether an integration is adopted or merely announced. Scoped at twelve to twenty-four months.
Outcome
The acquired business was integrated into the European cluster under a common reporting, governance and treasury framework. Local management moved from standalone practices to group-aligned routines, giving headquarters clearer visibility and the Czech operation a more stable basis for operating inside the wider organisation.
Cross-border industrial group · Intervention in Germany · Industrial manufacturing · Post-merger integration
Reporting cadence rebuilt after a German acquisition, 90 days
Situation
Two organisations had merged without their reporting following.
Mandate
Establish a unified reporting cadence and bring synergy execution back on track.
Outcome
Within ninety days a unified cadence was established and reporting delays fell by more than half, with early cost savings, and the function transitioned to steady state under the new holding company.
Cost and duration
What an integration or carve-out mandate costs and how long it runs
Mandates are priced as a daily rate against scope, authority and duration. There is no percentage of salary, no placement fee and no upfront investment. You pay for days worked against an agreed mandate, and the rate is confirmed before the executive starts.
Indicative daily rate
€1,000 – €3,000
Higher where the mandate carries a statutory position or cross-border complexity.
Duration and milestones
Integration mandate
Nine to eighteen months
Decision cadence established
In the opening weeks
Executive on site
Within 72 hours of the completed brief
What moves the number.
The number of countries and legal entities in scope. The duration of the transitional services agreement and how many schedules have to be exited. Whether separation and integration run in parallel. Whether systems integration sits inside the mandate. Every mandate is delivered on site.
What it should be measured against.
Not the cost of the mandate, but the cost of the situation continuing without an accountable executive while decisions are deferred.
What you will actually pay.
A Partner gives you a figure in the first confidential conversation. No charge, no obligation.
Questions
Questions boards and investors ask
Is this the same as your post-merger integration service?
They work together. The service page sets out how CE Interim structures integration and carve-out programmes. This page is about the executive who owns the execution: the authority they need, and how the appointment is made.
Interim Integration Director or Interim CEO?
Integration Director where the businesses exist and the programme lacks an owner. CEO where the acquired business has no functioning leadership at all, in which case integration follows from the leadership appointment rather than the other way round.
Interim Integration Director or a consultancy?
A consultancy typically provides analysis, programme design and recommendations. An Interim Integration Director carries delegated executive authority to make sequencing, dependency and Day One decisions within the mandate, and remains accountable for execution across both organisations.
Can the executive direct people who do not report to them?
Often, yes. Workstream leads may remain in their functional reporting lines while the sponsor delegates programme decision authority to the interim, which is why the mandate has to be explicit. The sponsor and the decision space are agreed before the
executive starts.
Why does the transitional services agreement matter so much?
Because it is the real schedule. Every service the seller provides has an exit date, and extension can increase cost or create additional exposure depending on the agreement. Sequencing against those exits rather than against the organisation chart is what determines whether the programme finishes.
When should systems be integrated?
Systems should be integrated when operational readiness supports it. In some transactions that can begin early; in others it should be delayed. Forcing a platform or reporting change while the business is still recovering from the transaction disrupts the activity the synergy case relies on. Deciding that ordering is one of this role’s central responsibilities.
Can you add a specialist midstream?
Yes. Where a workstream needs dedicated leadership, a systems transition lead or an HR integration director can be added alongside the integration director from the wider network.
Who contracts the executive, and what does the client carry?
CE Interim structures mandates on a business-to-business basis, and the interim executive does not join the client as a permanent employee. The contracting party is a local entity or a regional hub depending on the country of intervention, drawn from more than thirty entities across the Valtus Alliance. Employment-status, tax, social-security and related obligations depend on the jurisdiction, the contracting structure and the circumstances of the mandate, so the engagement is structured for the country in which the work is performed.
Who carries the risk where the executive holds a formal position?
Insurance is arranged per mandate. The executive carries their own directors’ and officers’ and professional liability cover, and on some mandates the client provides or contributes to it. CE Interim and every member of the Valtus Alliance carries its own cover as well. The scope of responsibility, the boundaries and the signature limits are agreed in writing by the client, CE Interim and the executive before the executive starts.
When should we appoint, before or after close?
Where legally permitted and the timetable allows, appointing before close can improve Day One preparation. Pre-close work must respect merger-control, competition-law, confidentiality and transaction restrictions, so decision rights over the target remain appropriately limited until closing and any required clearance. After close the mandate moves from planning into execution. An integration director appointed pre-close can scope Day One properly, read the transitional services schedule as a project plan and have governance running from the first day of ownership. Where appointment happens only after close, the executive may first need to establish governance, recover unresolved dependencies and clarify decisions that were not owned during preparation.
Who owns the synergy number, us or the executive?
The executive owns the pipeline and the measurement. The business owns delivery of each line, with a named owner against it. Keeping those responsibilities separate helps prevent the programme from becoming the only place where accountability sits.
How long before the programme is under control?
The opening weeks are used to establish one dependency view, one issue queue and one escalation route. The mandate itself runs longer, with duration driven by the integration scope and any transitional-services exit schedule.
What happens at the end?
Clean documentation, team alignment and a stable operating model, handed to named people inside the business. You choose whether that is a permanent handover or continued interim support.
Integration value does not disappear at once. It leaks while everyone waits for a decision.
Speak directly with a CE Interim Partner about the leadership situation, the mandate and the authority required. Confidential, and it does not commit you to an appointment.
Partner response within 24 hours. Urgent leadership situations prioritised.
EN 
DE 
FR 
IT 
PL 
RO 
CS 
SK 
HU 
ES 
RU 
AR 
SL