Lost in a crowd?

One alliance manager, one account, hundreds of people to influence and support. How?

A medium sized company strapped for cash is trying to develop a sales relationship with a huge, complex and multifaceted systems integrator.

The 'strategy' at a local level is to allocate an alliance manager armed with a pat on the back, massive expectations and a career jeapardising degree of corporate scrutiny.

The only approach our luckless pilgrim can adopt is to try and win a leading deal while elbowing into events and meetings where the target communities gather.

The risk of prolonged slow and agonising failure is too high.

The problem explored.

The everyday development and management of channel and alliance relationships requires the establishment of 2 things (as a minimum):

1. Visibility - being a constant and iterative presence that makes the relationship a part of the working lives of those in partner organisations.

2. Responsiveness - developing a reputation for providing relevant, timely and accurate support when it is required.

A large number of organisations fall short of these fundamental goals. A lack of visibility is often a resource issue and poor responsiveness betrays flaws in channel management and organisation.

Many suppliers see acquiring relationships with the larger players in their markets as a business development panacea. It is here that the twin goals of visibility and responsiveness become much more problematic.

First, the large companies are just that, large. The communities of individuals to whom you need to be visible can run into hundreds if not thousands of people.

Secondly those with whom suppliers have smaller relationships (the typical channel) share a core business. In larger partner relationships the solution is only one of many that the larger player is offering or is just a component of a much broader core solution. This means that the focus and expertise of those that need to be engaged lies elsewhere.

This exagerates your need for visibility and their need for responsiveness. Couple this with the numbers concerned and you have a big obstacle to success.

An efficient response.

This is a 'one to many' issue. Therefore it lends itself to marketing disciplines rather than sales. However this is marketing to a few hundred people at the most. Their names and contact details are known. There is a willingness and a very good reason to talk to engage. Their company policy encourages them to do so. The partnership is not visible and no-one knows to whom to turn should they need to.

This requires precision marketing.

The approach has two components. The first is a web portal. It was private to the relationship. It is a 'shop window' and a 'virtual account manager'. It is not a generic partner portal.

1. It is jointly owned and funded. It's design and content is determined by both organisations.

2. It only deals with the solutions and issues relevant to the relationship.

3. Large companies speak a unique language; the portal reflects this.

4. It is limited in scope. This means the site was easy to navigate.

5. There are fewer issues of confidentiality. Case studies and competitive information are less sensitive.

6. It can respond quickly to opportunites and events.

7. It has to be engaging, its format eye catching, entertaining and fun. This needs the creative input of a marketing agency. This cannot be done in-house.

8. The 'editor-in-chief' is the alliance manager. The alliance manager must keep it current and relevant. It becomes part of the role and appraisals embody the efficacy of the portal.

9. Avoided the 'men in suits'. Messaging comes from those for whom the portal is designed to serve rather than senior executives. This makes it more relevant, accessible and engaging.

10. Posted a comprehensive 'rogues gallery' of the faces of useful contacts from both organisations (in 3 D) and advice on when to use them. Implement a 'click to talk' facility over each picture along with other collaboration technologies.

11. Set up a report facility. Capture who visits the site, how often and where they go. This offers a leading indicator of progress and a list of who the key early advocates are. These can then be fed 'royal jelly' to enhance their influence with their colleagues. Again, this can be used for alliance manager reviews.

12. Every page should have a feedback section.

13. Use the platform for introducing social networking facilities. The portal is owned and run by all in the relationship creating a positive social fabric of visibility and responsiveness.

14. Place features on the portal to encourage 'word of mouth' promotion of the site.

This is half the job.

The other element is to adopt a policy of driving this small and defined community to use it. This requires a campaign mentality. Because of the numbers involved the cost of this is low and the scope for creativity and variety is high.

The Cost.

The programme will require an investment. And here comes the need to make a decision. Is there a willingness to make the alliance work? If the answer is yes then with this willingness comes a commitment to invest. Merely the appointment of an account manager, however talented, does not offer enough of an assurance of success.

The approach outlined builds a operating context for the account manager. It enables him or her to influence and support a large number of people freeing up time to develop and close specific opportunities.

The cost of implementing this approach is a fraction of the cost of adding just one additional person to the account.

In turn this cost is just a rounding error in the cost of a protracted engagement that ultimeately fails.

Chemistry

The establishment of a organisational chemistry in alliances - the fast track to success.

The word chemistry has been adopted by the business alliance community. It has been said that in selecting an alliance 3 things have to be present; a long-term win, a short-term win and cultural chemistry. Corporations, consultants and writers generally acknowledge that business relationships thrive where personal and cultural chemistry has been established.

This posting seeks to deconstruct the notion of chemistry and looks at how organisations might increase the chances of creating this hugely powerful business enabler.

First, we will look at why it is so important. Then we will define what it is. Finally, and most important, we will explore how we can develop chemistry within alliances.


Why is the establishment of chemistry so important?

Identifying, establishing and developing chemistry is a critical feature of alliance management.

Why should this be?

In short it is the short cut to results. How so?

Chemistry defines a healthy and complex cultural and inter-personal fabric. Within this fabric alliances can develop and execute on plans, exploit opportunities and face challenges positively.

Chemistry is the thread that runs through the 12 guiding principles of alliance management (see previous posting).

Amongst these 12 guiding principles the dominant notion is trust. For two or more individuals who enjoy a special combination of styles, ethics, personalities, humours, interests, pre-occupations or ambitions trust comes with the package. A betrayal of that trust would be unthinkable. This in turn spawns a form of integrity. Integrity that flows from shared and understood principles.

Communication is facilitated. Often much communication is unnecessary. So much is just understood. This leaves the alliance the time to focus on the achieving extraordinary results. These are the difficult objectives that deliver unassailable competitive advantage, the ‘stretch initiatives’.

Conflict can be heated. But neither party will sacrifice the relationship on a single issue. There is too much to lose. Conflict will be resolved.

Chemistry delivers the principles of respect and enlightened self-interest.

Broadly speaking chemistry brings better results quicker. Chemistry by-passes process. Chemistry motivates. Chemistry facilitates playfulness. Chemistry delivers commitment and diligence. It delivers positive, motivated and productive teams. It brings fun. It brings efficiency. It creates happy and fulfilled people.

In summary, it is good.


What is chemistry?

This word ‘chemistry’ is a two-edged sword. To those who have experienced this complex state it offers a label and is an excellent description. It is true to say that those who have worked in a business relationship that has that special feeling recognize it immediately. Likewise its absence is starkly obvious.

To help establish what chemistry is, let's look at what it isn't.

Every alliance relationship is unique. Let’s look at five broad categories of relationship state. The first four define what chemistry is not. The five identified here are:

1. Politeness
2. War
3. Process only
4. Partial chemistry
5. Sunlight and love (chemistry)

Politeness.

This is the 'low stress absence of chemistry' state.

This is comfortable but unproductive. The relationship is friendly and business-like. The nature of the alliance is defined and planning has taken place. The clues for this state are lots of long and positive meetings that involve large numbers of relatively junior attendees. Watch out for the word ‘workshop’. The boat is never rocked.

There is a bias away from execution. Workshops are deemed to be productive and encouraging. Time passes and no real results are achieved. Effort is applied to process definition. Short cuts are rarely sought.

This is the equivalent of the student who spends all his revision time building and updating his revision timetable. The examination arrives, he has worked very hard but has actually done no revision.

This situation can continue as long as the organizations involved will tolerate it. This can be a surprisingly long time.

There is a variant of this state. There are occasions where an alliance relationship is delivering real value and benefits but this has nothing to do with the team that is responsible for the alliance. The team plans and meets in isolation. This can make polite process difficult to spot. The problem here is twofold. First, the team is a wasted resource as they are actually not influencing anything. Secondly, the alliance will have no direction or driver. The alliance will be acting tactically. The participants are not engaged. This suggests that the relationship is not delivering all it could and may have a short life-span.

These alliances are thought to be good until the real world barges in. Issues will arise which cannot be avoided. Conflict will test the relationship. The signature of the politeness relationship that is dying is a mutual attitude of supervised neglect. Nobody really cares.

War

This is the 'high stress absence of chemistry' state.

Thankfully this is unusual. There is a positive aspect to constant conflict. It means that the relationship is important to both sides. War is often a symptom of a clear reliance one upon the other combined with a fundamental clash of cultures and mis-trust. If this reliance was not present the pain of war would be avoided; both sides will go their different ways.

An important healthy relationship may have been neglected. The chemistry that was once there has quietly leaked away. The organizations go to war. Suspicion replaces trust. An adversarial approach exists. In order for one party to win the other has to lose. There are battles to win the upper hand. Commonly one side starts referring to themselves as ‘the customer’. The number of misunderstandings rises. Human error becomes conspiracy. Stress stifles motivation and clear thought. The ability to execute on initiatives disappears. The alliance is unable to steer through hard times. The alliance is at the mercy of the environment. It is a negative spiral that must be broken. It is no fun.

Process only

This is the state of not having chemistry and not wanting chemistry.

The objectives sought are specific, have fixed boundaries and timescales. Project planning and process are put in place to deliver those objectives. Chemistry would be good but is not needed.

The question here is that can this be regarded as an alliance? It is probably more a collaboration. This begs a further question that if the relationship is to be moved from collaboration to alliance perhaps something more than process should be sought. It is a question of management judgement. Process can be a slow and cumbersome basis for a relationship. Where speed, creativity and flexibility are required it might not be enough.

Sometimes the oft- discussed notion of ‘co-opetition’ falls into this category. Two firms collude for a specific purpose but cannot go further because they are fundamentally competitors.


Partial chemistry

Alliances are often formed between organizations that are themselves large and complex. Naturally this means that an alliance can exhibit some or even all relationship states simultaneously. A possible useful approach to this complexity is to treat each entity separately whilst all the time attempting to encourage the cross-contamination of the good practise and experience.

Sunlight and love (chemistry)

Chemistry is not perfection. Whilst chemistry can obviously grow between individuals, this rarely can be applied to organizations that are often complex and large. But first you must define the phenomenon realistically and look for the clues.

The alliance is delivering planned results consistently and predictably (and usually a bit /lot more). There are ambitious plans for future initiatives. Execution outweighs analysis and planning by a very large extent. All functional areas share a relationship style. Conflict and differences are handled quickly and unemotionally. Communication is frequent, short and effective. Scheduled reviews take on a lower importance. If these observations exist there is a good chance that the alliance has entered the chemical zone.

It is subtle and complex. So apply a simple rule when looking for this precious state of affairs. Ask those that work within the alliance regularly whether or not they enjoy the experience. Ask them whether or not they dread dealing with those in the other organization. When they are left a message how long does it take for them to call back? The signs of chemistry are written on people’s faces. The actions they take and the language they use are full of clues.


Developing chemistry

It is arguable that some alliances will never achieve this state. A view of whether or not chemistry can be created depends very much on the view one takes as to how it comes about.

Once again chemistry is subtle and complex. It often defies rational scrutiny. In some cases a cultural chemistry is expected. For instance, two firms that have developed and grown in California’s silicon valley over the same period should be expected to exhibit the same values and outlook when doing business. However, to really exploit the advantage of alliances one should not restrict alliance candidates to organisations that a born of the same cultural ‘egg’.

Customers may wish to formalise an alliance with suppliers. This may represent an opportunity for them to develop new and future business strategies. This moves a relationship away from just a sell to / buy from situation. It moves to a sell with and together relationship.

There are five broad categories of how chemistry is achieved in alliances.

1. Organisations naturally enjoy a synergy of cultures for whatever reason. This is good alliance selection and sometimes just good old luck.

2. Certain behaviours increase the chances of chemistry developing.

3. The identification of pockets of chemistry and in recognising them, they are nurtured and built on.

4. Chemistry is born from individual relationships.

5. Chemistry follows people with certain personality styles around.



So how can we give chemistry the best chance of developing?

Below are some strategies and activities that can be employed to move an alliance closer to a healthy chemistry.

1. Individuals that ‘click’ is really important (chemical source 4). Two strong motivated, charismatic and influential people can carry whole organizations towards our goal. More than two is better. On the other hand the two people who do not get along can kill what could be a good alliance. Picking the right individuals is key.

2. There are some cases where the choice of alliance to deliver strategy is very broad. There are a number of candidates for an alliance. In these cases the alliance with the chemistry selects itself. Alliances where there is none can de-select quite early (chemistry source 1).

This begs the question should alliances be initiated top down or bottom up?

3. Work hard and been seen to work hard (chemistry source 2). Nothing builds respect like individuals who are prepared to put in extra effort to make an alliance work. Whatever misgivings that may be present can be compensated by diligence.

4. Recognize and focus on the ‘soft issues’ (chemistry source 2). Lead by example. Demonstrate trust. Look for ‘leaps of faith’. Give. Identify and promote good behaviours. Play a scrupulous and explicit ‘straight bat’.

5. Find those individuals who work well together and sponsor them within both organizations (chemistry source 3). It also gives them more power to deliver more of the same. If they become more influential the alliance will benefit.

6. Really get to know the other organization (chemistry source 2). Accumulate all the information you can. This includes everything from corporate strategy to what are the hobbies, interests and motivations of individuals. What does the political landscape look like? Who in influential? Who is not? This minimizes gaffs and offers effective issues and individuals on which to focus.

7. Identify and share explicitly your guiding principles. This way your alliance ‘partner’ will feel more secure. They know where they stand and will be able to predict how you will behave. Consistent and predictable behaviour builds trust.

8. Set expectations clearly. Publish and promote the 12 guiding principles (see previous posting). These can be adapted for emphasis depending on the alliance.

9. Recognise and value of good luck (chemistry source 3). Don't rely on it. Monitor and consider the suggestions above. Times change. People move on. The business environment changes. Be vigilant. Recognise and value what you have. Nurture it.


What are the obstacles to chemistry?

There are many. Some are subtle. Some are obvious. Here are a few of the more general ones.

1. Prejudice – intellectual, racial, sexual, age and rank.
2. Snobbery
3. Lack of respect
4. Lack of trust
5. Perceived lack of commitment
6. Personality clashes
7. Badly handled conflict
8. Conflicting personal agenda
9. Factional infighting – politics and conflicting agenda
10. Inconsistent behaviour


Each problem once identified will influence which is the mix and emphasis of some of the solutions outlined above.


Chemistry and competitive analysis

Competitive analysis should also include information and intelligence about the nature of the relationships between your competition and their alliances.

Look out for the clues of chemistry amongst these relationships. Chemistry is an excellent barrier to place between your alliances and your competition. The reverse applies. Are you ‘locked-out’ of a relationship?

Is there a part of you competitor’s business that is experiencing irrational success? Are they working alone? If not, you may have found their match made in heaven.

Business is a social science. The social elements are hardest to manage. They can be mysterious. But where there is mystery, there lies opportunity.

The Developmental Stages of Alliances - Operating States

Alliances portfolio management. Managing the alliance life-cycle.

Project management often refers to a project’s ‘operating state’. The same can be argued for an alliance. How an alliance is managed is largely influenced by its 'operating state'


Operating state one – just an idea

This is the stage where an alliance is considered possible and valuable but no actions are being taken and no decision has been made to act upon the idea. In order to move the idea into the next state, that of planning, the idea must be promoted amongst the appropriate individuals and a decision must be made to implement a plan.

Operating state two – planning

In this state the alliance is formulated by a team of formally appointed individuals. It is visualised, rendered real and designed. The goals, objectives and strategy of the alliance are defined, along with specific, measurable and do-able short and long- term results to be produced.
The team creates a vision for the alliance. Structures are put in place to enable the alliance to be realized. Individuals take on specific responsibilities and make promises. Communication channels and group structures are established. Timelines are defined along with milestones with which to identify progress.

The pitfalls at this stage are twofold. Some teams could get bogged down in detail which will delay or stall progress. Conversely, the alliance can be kicked off before these necessary policies and structures are clear.

The next stage is when people start working on the alliance.

Operating state three – concentration

This is the hardest state to be in. It involves establishing order and compliance around the alliance.

The concentration stage is characterized by rigour:

The alliance team needs to:

- Box itself in
- Give itself and others no alternative
- Follow instructions
- Establish trust
- Tighten discipline
- Own the alliance
- Be clear and work on short term results
- Focus attention
- Keep its word, no matter what
- Avoid unnecessary actions
- Be resilient and tough
- Grind out results
- Put 10 in get 1 out

The pitfall in this state is to relax and allow too much leeway.

To move to the next state the above characteristics need to have become a context for team cohesion and for freedom to be within the team.

Operating state four – momentum

In this operating state, the structure of the alliance gets strengthened. The strict discipline established in the state of concentration can be relaxed, and team members allowed to be more creative and to play full out.

Momentum is a highly energetic, active phase. Spontaneity and inspiration are present in the team. There is also a high level of relationship and communication, and people from outside get interested in the alliance.

It is appropriate in this phase to promote the alliance to the outside, have it be well thought of, and create a demand for it.

It is also necessary during this phase to heal any wounds left over from concentration.
The alliance vision is communicated, and project management style moves from authoritarianism to guidance.

More work is created, but the work is less hard than in concentration. In this phase, when you put in 1, you get 10.

While in momentum, the objectives of the alliance should be reviewed and revised if necessary. Momentum is a pleasant place to be.

The pitfall here is to get too happy being in momentum, and not to stabilize the alliance.

To move on to stability, acknowledge your results and examine what works and what doesn't.

Operating state five – stability

In the operating state of stability, everything needed for the alliance to be fulfilled is present. The alliance is running smoothly, and its structure is fully understood. That is to say, when an expected result is not produced, it is because a change has been made, and the change can be easily identified and corrected.

In stability, accountabilities are clear-cut, how to produce results is clear and the objectives and measures of the alliance are clear and sufficient.

When in stability, it is appropriate to standardize, write up procedures, make provisions, and train people. Long-term structures can be established for the alliance. Team members can be given more authority and take initiatives. The team can be solidified.

Another term for the operating state of stability is "Business as Usual". One of the pitfalls of this operating state is boredom. It is easy to become bored and slip back into momentum, which is a much more exciting operating state.

To move into the next higher operating state, have the team make a bigger commitment.

Operating state six - breakthrough

Breakthroughs are born of breakdowns. When a alliance goes into stability, or "Business as Usual", it is possible to push it into breakthrough by purposely causing a breakdown.

A breakdown occurs whenever there is a gap between a committed goal and what can be reasonably expected to happen, given the current circumstances, according to past experience and current knowledge.

The resolution of the breakdown must be a departure from the past: unprecedented, extraordinary, a breakthrough. And the larger the commitment, the larger the breakdown and the potential breakthrough.

Most commonly, breakdowns are seen as problems. In fact, they are a demand for extraordinary action. They cause people to shift attention and see things differently. This perceptual change is often the opening that lets people see opportunities for previously unconsidered actions.

Some pitfalls of this operating state are:

- Confusing making a commitment with signing a guarantee,
- Managers assuming people can be directed to be committed to a particular result,
- Team members not unequivocally committed to the overall result.

Operating state seven - emergency

A alliance is in this operating state when it is in the process of slipping back one operating state, such as slipping from momentum into concentration.
Left alone, the alliance will continue to slip, eventually to non-existence.

To correct this state, the team needs to declare an emergency, and find out what happened: either it has stopped doing something that worked, or it has started doing something that doesn't. Then, correct it and put in a policy/procedure to keep it in place.