I agree with Claes and would offer these additional observations:
A merger is often a time of downsizing, while the new owners try to gain economies of scale. In such an environment I would not want to be seen spending time on a zero-value activity like changing logos on documents.
Also, I've visited companies that have survived mergers. All the old hands remember which company they used to work for and often still have strong allegiance to it, even though it may have been defunct for years. They will happily tell new hires all about the old company, so I think the risk of anyone being confused by references to the old company is minimal.
Indeed, I think there's a risk of reducing morale in the workforce by unceremoniously removing the old identity and appearing to be more concerned with that, than with rewriting processes. And rewriting processes will almost certainly become necessary, as common infrastructure in purchasing, manufacturing, HR, sales, help desk and so on is merged on the hunt for economies.
Indeed, mergers are a time of opportunity for quality departments, I think, ensuring that new processes are defined to match new organisations. I have often seen situations where the quality department have not revised the processes (often due to weak management commitment to, um, what I'd call real management) with the result that the process says, "Take the document/component/subassembly to department X for processing" and the people say, "But department X has been axed: now what do we do?"
So in my experience, mergers are an opportunity for quality to make a difficult time just a little easier, by matching new processes to the new organisation.
Hope this helps,
Patrick
