When I was at CA, they were pretty good at acquisition of companies. HP struggles.

The comparison is perhaps unfair: CA was much smaller and more focused - software only. HP is this big sprawling giant that tries to sell everything from printers to IT consulting.

On the other hand IBM tries to do the same and I think manages to project a clearer, more unified culture and image - not much more but they do better at it. (...nowadays. They had similar challenges in the past).

William Vambenepe triggered my musing with this gem:

Two months ago, HP announced the acquisition of EDS...One month later ...“EDS Asia Pacific Standardises on BMC Software Atrium CMDB to Improve Service Delivery”.

CA was brutal. On day 1 of the acquisition, you had a job or you didn't. For those who did, the uncompromising message was "You are CA now. Here's how we do things". Over the next 3-6 months another tranche would leave when they found they didn't fit that culture. It was quick, it was clean, and it preserved a consistent cohesive culture. CA didn't do so well with later (larger) acquisitions, and they lost that culture later but not through acquisition.

Many criticised it. Me, I prefer that to six months or a year of uncertainty, wandering around after the acquisition wondering if you have a job or not.

HP needs to put its stamp on EDS and get control soon. Someone in EDS Asia isn't on board yet.