A compilation of the research that supports the contention that a best practice approach to developing alliance programmes produces better results.

1. Common Sense is not
Common Practice
How Alliance Best Practice
Programmes are Delivering
Competitive Advantage

2. Contents
The following topics are covered in this briefing:
1 Why and how should you partner?
2 Why is a best practice approach the best option?
3 What do we mean by „Alliance Best Practice‟?
4 Why isn‟t everyone following a best practice approach?
5 What evidence is there that best practices = best results?
6 How should you develop an alliance best practice approach?
7 Appendices – Further supporting evidence and documentation
Page  2

3. Why and how should we partner?
A best practice approach to alliance development produces better results
Best Practices = Best Results
 Organisations need to grow to survive.
Typically they have done so by using the
„build, buy, ally‟ model of business development.
 The recession has made the first two of these
growth options difficult hence attention is now
turning to the third option – ally.
 Organisations are now actively looking for the
best way to ally with a range of:
suppliers, competitors, customers and others.
 Research from a multiple series of sources
suggests that the best way to ally is by using a
best practice approach.
 This short paper describes: the rationale, the
supporting justification, and the most cost
efficient method of implementing such alliance
best practice programmes.
Page  3

4. Why is a best practice approach the best
option?
Best practice = higher return at lower cost in less time
 Following a „best practice‟ approach has been recognised as a
Approved successful business strategy for many years. (See for example the
Theory Total Quality movement e.g. Baldridge and the European Foundation
for Quality Management).
 Such programmes have unmistakable advantages over alternative
Advantages proprietary solutions. Typically these are: greater speed, lower
cost, better quality, predictability of outcomes and less risk.
 By relying on proven success strategies that have been developed
Proven Success
previously you will enjoy all the advantages above in developing your
Strategies alliance programmes.
 Results from best practice partnering programmes show a higher return
Better in less time at a lower cost (see later research justifications).
Results
Page  4

5. What do we mean by ‘Alliance Best
Practice’?
Best Practice = Doing the right things in the right order:
 There is a great deal of  In this briefing paper we  ABP has researched over
confusion regarding the describe „best practice‟ as 27,000 alliance
term „best practice‟ or systematised common relationships and
„best practices‟ sense. An currently maintains a
particularly when used to approach, behaviour, proc database of over 180,000
describe strategic ess or activity that shows entries. It is from
alliances. predictably better results observations of this
in a quicker and more database that we draw
efficient manner than the our best practice
alternatives. conclusions.
Page  5

6. Why isn’t everyone using it?
Common sense is not always common practice
 Knowing that you should do something and having the courage to do
it is not the same thing. (See for example Strategy and the Fat
Smoker by David H Maister).
 Many organisations labour under the misapprehension that designing
and developing proprietary approaches is the only way to secure a
competitive advantage.
 In fact simply knowing that best practices exist is no guarantee to
success. The skill is in knowing which best practices can be
implemented at which time by the organisation: 1) Unconscious
Incompetence, 2) Conscious Incompetence 3) Conscious
Competence 4) Unconscious Competence
Page  6

7. What evidence is there that best practice =
best results?
All of the following reports concluded that best practices = best results
Practioners Consultants Academics
 Cisco benchmarking  Anderson Consulting  University of the United
research 1999 – 2007 „Best Practices in Nations – Bi Annual State
 Procter and Gamble Strategic Alliances‟ 1989 of Alliances Review 2002
internal R&D programme  Boston Consulting Group 2004 2006 2008 2010.
2002 – 2006 Pharma Benchmarking  Harvard University
 AstraZeneca – Internal report 2010. (Rosabeth Moss Kanter)
project 2005 – 2010  IBM Healthcare industry Review of 37 global
annual review 2001 - alliance programmes
 Eli Lilly alliance 2002 – 2006
programme re-evaluation 2011.
2001 – 2002  Booz Allen and Hamilton  University of Southern
review of 3,500 global California annual review
 GSK Healthcare – of 12,000 alliances in
strategic review 2004 - partnering organisations
2002 – 2006. Silicon Valley.
2008
 McKinsey annual alliance  University of Eindhoven
This list is a small partial sample for
example purposes only. For a fuller list review 1995 – 2005. Innovation centre annual
of sources please see the Appendices review.
Section.
Page  7

8. How should you develop an alliance best
practice programme?
Executing a best practice programme would be a five step process:
Step 1 - Baseline Step 3 – Implementation Step 5 – Review
• Deliverables include best practice • Deliverables include additional Alliance • Tracking the
education/guidance, program launches, performance metrics, an programme
charter, program design, and a improved processes for inter-business effectiveness to pre
customized alliance framework decision-making, and a recommendation established success
• Provides goal alignment, implementable for a relationship management system criteria.
vision, and a more robust Alliance • Makes Alliances an integral part of your • Taking remedial action
valuation methodology. organisation's thinking. as necessary
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5
Step 2 – Strategy and Design Step 4 – Scale Capability
• Deliverables include finalized • Deliverables include skills
Vision, portfolio plan, detailed matrix, Tools, legal frameworks, internal
roadmap, partner matrix, and tactical certification program, web site
improvement opportunities • Spreads Alliance capabilities throughout
• Provides a pragmatic realization path with company; disseminates best practices;
clear benefits defined embeds training for certification and
Alliance thinking in business systems
Page  8

9. APPENDICES
Page  9

10. Support for the Alliance Best Practice
Approach
There is considerable evidence supporting a best practice approach:
Research Community Practitioners
 There are currently 523  There are currently 2,400  The Alliance Best Practice
documents in the ABP active members of the approach has been taught
Framework which support Alliance Best Practice to over 1,000 active
the concept of best community. alliance executives during
practices in alliances.  The community is split the last 10 years.
 The oldest entry comes into both a general group  Companies who have
from 1989 the newest is and a thought leaders adopted the approach
from June 2011. group. (amonst others) include:
 The research comprises:  There are over 100 global  IBM, Microsoft, AstraZene
books, white Chief Alliance Officers ca, BASF, Bristol Myers
papers, articles, research and renowned alliance Squibb, Pfizer, SAP, Rolls
assignments, presentatio authors in the thought Royce, Starbucks, Oracle,
ns and investigations. leadership group. and Bayer Schering
Pharma.
Page  10

11. What is Alliance Best Practice (ABP)?
ABP is a research consultancy specialising in B2B strategic alliances
Alliance Best Practice
 Alliance best practices are the
identified practices that research has
shown lead to optimal alliance results
 ABP is a group of over 20
internatioanal alliance experts able to
cover the world and work in multiple
languages
 ABP is dedicated to:
discovering, developing and
disseminating best practices for its
clients
 It does this through the ABP
Database (ABPDBTM)
Page  11

12. Alliance Best Practices Exist
ABP has investigated over 27,000 alliances to identify best practices
Research Validation Implications
 Recognised in General  Common Success  ABP has since used the
Management theory - Factors (CSFs) - „Those resulting framework with
goes hand in hand with practices, principles, proc over 600 in depth
quality and edures, behaviours or benchmarking
benchmarking. factors which appear in examinations of strategic
 ABP has examined successful strategic alliances in action.
27,000 international alliances in a statistically  The ABP database
collaborative relationships relevant manner‟. currently holds over
from both domestic and  ABP then validated the 180,000 observations of
international sources. concepts with over 500 these CSFs in practice.
 We found factors which practicing alliance  The results show that
appeared consistently in managers from ASAP – doing the right things
successful strategic The Association of (best practices) produced
alliances – common Strategic Alliance the right results (more
success factors (CSFs). Professionals. value / revenue).
Page  12

13. Partner ‘Intimacy’ Spectrum
Both partners need to define the topology of the
progression and the ‘value of the journey’
Low High
Intimacy Intimacy
Low High
Value Value
0 = None 25 = Low 50 = Median 75 = High 100 = Perfection
 Commodity Price  Some customization  Customized/  Shared risks &
individualized investment
 Interchangeable  Flexibility/levels of
Product service  Process & data  Deeply integrated
 Highly specified  Special knowledge integration  Mutually
deliverables  Solutions oriented interdependent
 Buy from, sell to and
 Buy from and sell sell with (GTM  Shared rewards  Breakthrough
to together) market value
 Greater cost value
leverage

14. Common Success Factors : Best Practices
There are currently 52 CSFs in 5 categories
Commercial Technical Strategic Cultural Operational
Co1 Business Value T11 Valuation of assets S20 Shared objectives Cu31 Business to O39 Alliance process
Proposition (BVP) business trust
T12 Partner company S21 Relationship O40 Speed of progress
Co2 Due Diligence market position Scope Cu32 Collaborative
O41 Revenue flow
corporate mindset
Co3 Optimum Legal / T13 Host company S22 Tactical and
O42 Business plan
Business Structure market position strategic risk Cu33 Collaboration
skills O43 Communication
Co4 Alliance Audit T14 Market fit of S23 Risk sharing
proposed solution Cu34 Dedicated O44 Health check
Co5 Key metrics S24 Exit strategies
alliance manager O45 Alliance charter
T15 Product fit with
Co6 Alliance reward S25 Senior executive
partners offerings Cu35 Alliance centre of O46 Change mgt.
system support
excellence
T16 Identified mutual O47 Operational
Co7 Commercial cost S26 B2B Strategic
needs in the Cu36 Decision making metrics
alignment
Co8 Commercial relationship process
benefit S27 Fit with strategic O48 Operational
T17 Process for team Cu37 Other cultural alignment
business path
Co9 Process for problem solving issues
negotiation S28 Other relationships O49 Exponential
T18 Shared Control Cu38 B2B Cultural breakthroughs
with same partner
Co10 Expected Cost Alignment
T19 Partner O50 Internal alignment
value ratio S29 Common strategic
accountability
ground rules O51 Project plan
S30 Common vision O52 Issue escalation
Page  14

15. Alliance Capability Model (ACMTM)
The goal is to establish partnering as an organisational competence
Alliance Capability Alliance Performance
People Commercial
Governance Technical
Key Performance
Leadership Resources Processes Strategic
Results
Structure Cultural
Technology Operational
Internal Benchmarking on an Ongoing Basis : Continuous Improvement Cycle
Alliance Maturity Model (AMMTM) Alliance Best Practice Index
External Benchmarking Alliance Best Practice Database (ABPDTM)
KEY MESSAGES:
 Investment in training alone will not deliver alliance competence (AC)
 Alliance managers need ongoing support to produce best results
 Building capability is essential to delivering results
 AC = Competitive business advantage

16. Partnering Competence
The ability to apply the CSFs in an efficient and effective manner
Alliance Knowledge People / Skills / Behaviours Organisational Structure
 The combination of CSFs  Four stages of knowledge  Built around:
into suitable individual growth:  Strategic
proceses  Unconcious  Managerial
 The combination of incompetence
processes into partnering  Operational
 Conscious
practices incompetence  In a matrix with:
 Built around alliance  Conscious  Alliance
portfolio management: competence  Sales
 Add  Unconscious  Marketing
 Adjust competence
 Technology
 Optimise
 Local Involvement
 Retire
Page  16

17. Alliance Maturity
There are three observable stages in organisational alliance maturity
Stage 1 - Opportunistic Stage 2 - Systematic Stage 3 - Endemic
 Alliances are  Separate corporate efforts  Planned investment in
opportunistic in different areas of partnering capability
 Each alliance is a „stand business  Wide scale use of full
alone‟ venture  Strategic partners range of alliance:
 Alliances are not part of developed training, tools and
the company‟s “Standard  Effort begun to adopt priocesses
Operating Procedure” “best practices” in alliance  Close integration of:
 Typically alliances are management sales, marketing, technolo
used to secure tactical  „Islands‟ of ownership of gy, innovation etc
„deals‟ or exploit individual alliances formed
market opportunities
Page  17

18. The Alliance Maturity Model AMMTM
Company 2
80
70
60
Company 1
50
40
Stage I Stage II Stage III
30
• Alliances are opportunistic
• Each alliance is a „stand alone‟ • Separate corporate efforts in different areas of business • Planned investment in partnering
20 venture • Strategic partners developed capability
• Alliances are not part of the • Effort begun to adopt “best practices” in alliance • Wide scale use of full range of
company‟s “Standard Operating management alliance capability building
Procedure” • Close integration of sales,
10 marketing, innovation etc
0
IC
6
7
5
9
4
2
8
1
3
C
21
10
34
29
28
32
23
24
27
26
12
33
15
13
19
20
25
14
22
18
16
30
17
31
11
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
W
B
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C

19. Alliance Best Practice Framework
The ABPDBTM with 180,000+ entries lies at the heart of the Framework
„Tools‟ refer to any There are 52 Critical
documents that help users Success Factors (CSFs)
apply the Framework identified from
knowledge. examining over 27,000
Bench
international strategic
MOUP alliances.
Marks
ABPDTM
The Alliance Maturity Model
TM establishes: current Relationship
Diagnostics
Optimisation
situation, (benchmark)
current and future By combining the
challenges, the nature of principles established in
the journey‟ and success the CSFs a range of
strategies for cost effective Best Practices (BPs)
progress. have been developed
Page  19

20. Relationships Benchmarked
ABP has worked with over 300 of the worlds best partnering organisations
Organisations in the ABPDBTM
Accenture (Asia Pac), Accenture (EMEA), Accenture (USA), Aenis, Air
France, AirPlus, Alcatel (UK), Alcatel Lucent, Amec, AMP Capital, ANA Airlines, Apple
15 25 Computer, Ariba, Arriva, Associated Business Leaders LLC, AstraZeneca, AT+T, Atos
Origin, Avaya, Avis, AXA, Bank of America, BASF, Basilica Consulting, Battelle, Bax
25 Global, Bayer Schering Pharma, BBC Corporation, BCX, BDO Unicon, Bearing
Point, Bell Canada, BMI Airlines, BNP Paribas, Boeringer Ingelheim, Borland, BP Oil
and Gas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, the British Library, BT, BT Global Services, BT
Wholesale, Buckland Austin, Business Objects, Capgemini, Cardinal Health, Carlson
Wagonlit, Caterpillar, CGI, Chordiant, Ciber-
27 72 Novesoft, Cisco, Cognos, Computacenter, Continental
Airlines, CSC, Csiper, Delaware, Dell, Deloitte, Delta Airlines, Deutsche Bank, Disney
Corporation, Dupont Industries, EBRC, Eli Lilly, EMC, Epiphany, Ericsson, Everis, Exact
Software, Excel Logistics, Experian, Exponent, Fontline, Fontworkx, Fujitsu
Communications, Fujitsu Consulting, Fujitsu Services, Fujitsu Siemens, GE Capital
Finance, Genesys, Genset, GlaxoSmithKline, GSK (Healthcare), GSK (Pharma), Hitachi
48 Consulting, HP (UK), HP (USA), i2 Technologies, IBM (Asia Pac), IBM (India), IBM
(UK), IBM (USA), IBM Global Services (NE IOT), IBM Global Services (USA), IBS, IDS
Sheer, Imbercal, Imperial Tobacco, Infor, Intel, Intentia, ITS, Japan Corporate
Bank, Kalamazoo, Kana, Keane, KLM Airlines, KLM Cargo, KPMG, Kuehne &
Nagle, Lawson, Lenovo, Logica, LTSB, Lufthansa, Marks and
Spencer, McAfee, Merck, Micro Focus, Microsoft (CS), Microsoft
(EPG), Mitie, Motorola, MSG, NEC
Computers, nFocus, Nokia, Nordea, Nortel, Northwest Airlines, Norwich Union Life, O2
Telefonica, Omax Auto, Omega
Pre Formation Formation Signs, Oracle, Peregrine, Pfizer, PLM, RBS, RCC, Reckitt Benckiser, Rider Levitt
Bucknall, Rifcon, Roiter Zucker, Rolls Royce, SAP (EMEA), SAP (Global), SAP
(UK), SAS Institute, Satyam, Scottish Widows, Serco, Siebel, Siemens AG, Siemens
Growth Maturity Business Services, Siemens Enterprise Networks, Siemens Comms, Siemens
GmbH, Singapore Airlines, Skyteam, Sprint, SSA, Staffware, Star
Extension Decline / Renewal Alliance, Starbucks, StorageTek, T Mobile, Tata Communications, Tata Consulting
Services (TCS), TDG Logistics, Telmex (mexico), Telus (Canada), TNT
Express, Tubelines, UBS, uLogistics, Unipart Logistics, Unisys, United
Airlines, Verizon, Vodafone, Wipro, Withy King, Xerox, Xerox Services, Zurich Financial
Services
Page  20

21. Benchmarks by sector
High Tech and Pharma companies comprise the majority of entries:
ABPDTM By Sector
17  The largest sector is High Tech
15 28
 All business sectors are now
21 beginning to use alliances
 Most common use is:
19
112  Developing New Business
(Growth)
 Developing New Products and
Services (Innovation)
Airlines / Finance IT
 Developing Quality or Cost
Pharma Manufacturing
Control (Recession)
Services / Media Other
Page  21

22. External research improves knowledge
To improve organisations must be aware of what „best practice‟ looks like:
Unconscious  Organisations don‟t know what they don‟t know!
Incompetence  No understanding of Best Practices or current performance
 Value loss high
Conscious  Developing understanding that Best Practices exist, but no systems to
take advantage of them. Difficulties in generating the business case.
Incompetence
 Can use the Framework to massively reduce cost of alliances
Conscious  Knowledge of Best Practices but need training and experience to apply
Competence them successfully.cost effectively generate breakthrough levels of
incremental revenue.
 Collaboration is a core competence now organisations can use
Unconscious partnering as a key business strategy.
Competence  Target = Partner of Choice (POC) in chosen sectors.
Page  22

23. Better knowledge = competitive advantage
The impact of lack of „best practice‟ knowledge:
Unconscious  Organisations don‟t know what they don‟t know!
Incompetence  No understanding of BP or current performance
 Value loss high
Conscious  Developing understanding that BP exist, but no systems to take
advantage of them. Difficulties in generating The business case.
Incompetence
 Can use the Framework to massively reduce cost of alliances
Conscious  Knowledge of BP but need training and experience to apply them
Competence successfully.cost effectively generate breakthrough levels of
incremental revenue.
 Collaboration is a core competence now organisations can use
Unconscious partnering as a key business strategy.
Competence  Target = Partner of Choice (POC) in chosen sectors.
Page  23

24. Commercial Implications of Best Practice II
Best Practice (BP) consistently out performs Non Best Practice (NBP)
Best Practice (BP) Non Best Practice (NBP)
70 65
61 59
Same Company
60 Same VP
Different Approach 49 48
50
39
Widening Delta as
40 34 times get tough
29
30 23 25
21
19 19
20 15
10
0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Page  24

25. Setting alliance manager standards
A professional well educated alliance executive is the „point of the sword‟
 Alliance manager  ABP chaired the  In addition ABP has
standards are now certification standards worked with
beginning to be committee for ASAP (the IBM, Starbucks, Eli
introduced Association of Strategic Lilly, and Rolls Royce to
 Organisations are paying Alliance Professionals) set suitable alliance
more attention to alliance and researched and built manager standards to
management training the competency support training needs
framework on which the analysis and appraisal
certification is based. review systems.
Page  25

26. Individual relationship benchmark example
Co1
O51 O52 Co2 Co3
 Generally consistent scoring O50
100
Co4
O49 90 Co5
O48 Co6
 Client scored lower (usually) O47
80
Co7
than the Partner O46 70 Co8
O45 60 Co9
 Differences were perceived in O44 50 Co10
the following areas; O43
40
T11
30
- Co1 Defined business value O42
20
T12
proposition O41 10 T13
- T2 - Partner company market O40 0 T14
position O39 T15
- T3 - Host company market position Cu38 T16
- S7 – B2B Strategic Alignment Cu37 T17
- Cu8 – B2b Cultural Alignment Cu36 T18
- O2 – Speed of progress so far Cu35 T19
Cu34 S20
- O12 – Internal Alignment Cu33 S21
Cu32 S22
Cu31 S23
S30 S24
S29 S28 S26 S25
S27

27. ABP Relationship Optimisation Process
Having a consistent way to optimise relationships improves results:
Identifier Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Stage 5
Description Goal Setting and Scoping Diagnostic Action Planning Resource Mapping 90 Day Review
Objective To identify the currently To generate an objective view Objective – To generate a To map all identified To track the progress of
projected commercial value of of the relationship which shows jointly agreed (with the partner) actions to a RACI[1] the joint action plan to
the relationship for the next 12 52 strengths and weaknesses action plan to optimise the framework to identify key target/s and take remedial
months. identified as a score from 0-100 relationship. stakeholders roles and action as required.
responsibilities.
Activities • Contact all key stakeholders • Agree on key stakeholders to • Construct agreed agenda • Conduct RACI chart • Conduct healthcheck
and draw up strawman provide data from draft report mapping for all identified assessment prior to
value projection • Gather data and send results • Analyse areas of improvement actions review meeting
• Resolve conflicts and to ABP misalignment (i.e. CSFs • Communicate and agree • Construct agenda and
discrepancies with • ABP benchmarks the data which show different scores role of all stakeholders pre meeting progress
stakeholders and produces draft alliance from one partner to the other) on the RACI chart report
• Document draft final value efficiency report (AER) • Agree common scores for all • Revise the RACI chart as • Conduct meeting
projection • Discuss AER with partner 52 areas (with the partner) necessary focusing on
• Obtain sign off of value (and / or ABP) and decide • Identify areas for action • Agree a single underperforming areas
projection from senior whether to progress to stage • Identify short term and long stakeholder from both /all • Agree revised action plan
executive sponsor 3 term actions organisations in each with remedial actions
• Identify help required with category • Publish revised action
long term actions • Sign off RACI chart with plan
• Produce agreed action plan host and partner
executives
Inputs • Relationship business plans • Online diagnostic • Draft AER • Agreed Action Plan • Jointly greed action plan
• Alliance strategy document • Briefing Pack from ABP • Suggested workshop agenda • RACI resource mapping • Jointly agreed
• Briefing Pack from ABP • ABP coaching as required • Agreed workshop attendee tool stakeholder map
list • MOUP
• Agenda
Outputs • Agreed Scope • Draft alliance efficiency report • Jointly agreed action plan • Stakeholder map of • Revised Action Plan
• Agreed initial commercial (AER) from ABP agreed actions
valuation • Benchmarking report
• Decision to proceed

28. The ROI of the Ally Model
The „Ally‟ model outperforms the „Build‟ or „Buy‟ models:
 The commercial return of the „ally‟
model is typically five times higher than
the other two models*.
 Organisations are increasingly turning
to the third generation business growth
model of „ally‟ because it represents a
more flexible and cost effective growth
model. In addition it is easier to
achieve in a recession.
 *Source Booz Allen and Hamilton Research 1996 -
2002

29. The two forces driving systematisation
Systematisation is being driven by internal and external; factors
 Regular interaction drives value
 Need to reuse knowledge gained
Internal
 Individual / corporate responsibility
 Systematisation allows consistent comparison
 Sarbanes Oxley, Basel II & III, Enron, credit
crunch, etc.
 External audits of processes
External  CFOs identifying value in the balance sheet
 It costs less to be working to a system
 CEOs tired of the hype „show me the money‟
Page  29

30. Commercial return of systematisation
Best practice practitioners on average earn more from their alliances:
 Efficiency
- (e.g. internal knowledge
transfer, having a defined
process, having a clear business
value proposition, constructing good
alignment with partners, etc.).
 Effectiveness
- (e.g. Assessing potential partners
more quickly, refusing to be drawn
into the opportunistic deal chasing
merry go round but rather setting and
keeping to a defined strategy, etc.)
- *Source Alliance Best Practice database 2001 -
2011

31. Alliance myths
Some commonly held views are negated by the evidence in the database:
Alliance Best Practice
 Alliances are about people pure and
simple
 There can be no „one‟ single best practice
all alliances are unique
 Collaboration is an unnatural act
 Alliances are not „sexy‟ business models
 If the money is good enough then people
will pretend to get along
 No organisation is going to willingly
commit to a limited number of partners
 There are too many variables in any
collaborative relationship to allow
meaningful analysis
Page  31

32. Alliance Challenges
Significant alliance challenges remain
Internal Challenges External Challenges
 Building bricks with no straw  Embedding collaborative thinking in
 Confusing terminology an organisation
 Identifying Key Stakeholders  Collaborative negotiation
 Lack of control  Developing a business case for an
alliance department / function
 Appointing the wrong person to the
alliance role  Distributed governance
 Technical excellence is not  Identifying alliance value
partnering excellence  Positioning alliances in
 Short term thinking organisational structures
 Managing multiple alliances  Overcoming organisational
resistance / inertia
Page  32

33. The developing future for alliances
Collaborative business to business relationships are here to stay
Internal Challenges External Challenges
 More revenue coming from indirect  Development of PRM systems
means  Greater focus on systematisation
 More audit pressures on  Training emerging as a capability
organisations to have auditable enhancing tool of choice
alliance processes
 More structure in alliance job
 Alliance manager certification and descriptions, behaviours and
qualification assessment centres
 Greater and more balanced  Alliance virtual teams and „ad hoc‟
measurement of alliances knowledge exchange taking place
 Greater focus on the ROI of alliances  New models and business cases
 Accelerating Hi Tech alliances with being built (e.g. cost of sales v cost
Pharma companies of alliances)
Page  33

34. Further Details
For further details please contact;
Mike Nevin
Managing Partner
Alliance Best Practice Ltd
Web: www.alliancebestpractice.com
Office: +44 (0)1675 442490
Mobile: +44 (0)7766 752350
E Mail: mike.nevin@alliancebestpractice.com