RT2C W4D1 GRANTH - MANAGEMENT - Management Tutors

Respond to at least two of your peers’ postings in one or more of the following ways: “See attachment for details”

APA citing
No plagiarism
See Colleague attachments
Discussion: Ideal Alliance Partners
In thinking about ideal alliance partners, Microsoft and Apple may not immediately spring to mind. But in fact, these often fierce competitors have a surprising history of collaboration; take for example, Office for Mac 2011. Working with, rather than against Apple, “Microsoft has once again made the Mac OS X version of its world-dominant productivity suite jive a lot more closely with the latest Windows version” (Hiner, 2010).
In “Finding the Ideal Partner,” Kwicien (2012) asserts that many organizations can grow only by forming business alliances. HR executives are increasingly being called upon to find suitable alliance partners. When considering potential alliance candidates, Kwicien emphasizes the need to think originally, or “outside the box.” He provides seven characteristics of the ideal alliance partner. One way for HR to encourage original thinking would be to ask the C-suite to consider new factors not previously considered when evaluating potential alliance partners. Drawing on the Required Resources and your own additional research, suggest three other plausible ways for HR to facilitate new ways of thinking about potential alliance partners.
Do you see any risk for the HR department in leading the charge of thinking outside the box in this regard? From a risk versus reward perspective, how might the HR department fail the organization by selecting non-traditional candidates?

Reference:
Hiner, J., (2010). The 10 greatest moments of Microsoft-Apple collaboration. ZDNet. Retrieved from http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/the-10-greatest-moments-of-microsoft-apple-collaboration/41106

To prepare for this Discussion
,
Review this week’s Learning Resources, especially:
·
https://www.amanet.org/articles/the-right-way-to-make-alliances-work/

· Finding the ideal partner:– See pdf
· Build Versus Buy in the Current– See pdf
· Managing business processes – See pdf

Assignment:

Respond

to two of your colleagues’ postings in one or more of the following ways:

· Ask a probing question.
· Share an insight from having read your colleagues’ postings.
· Offer and support an opinion.
· Validate an idea with your own experience.
· Make a suggestion.
· Expand on your colleagues’ postings.
· No Plagiarism
· APA Citing

1st Colleague – Natasha Mills

Ideal Alliance Partners

Top of Form

Week 4 Discussion

The primary objective for businesses to get into partnerships usually is to create more value than either partner can create when operating individually. The achievement of this objective is only possible if an organization selects the right partner. Kwicien (2012) identifies a list of characteristics for organizations to look for in potential partners. This paper relies on the list to identify more characteristics HR executives should seek in a potential partner. Further, the paper uses the identified characteristics to examine examples of business partnerships that proved successful or failed, as well as the need for original thinking by HR professionals.

Successful Partnership Example

The characteristics Kwicien (2012) recommends organizations to look for in potential partners include shared vision, carrier relationships, synergistic services or products, complementary 1stbusiness model, corporate culture, and management style. The partnership between Ford Motor Company and Domino’s Pizza in 2017 was ideal in light of the characteristics of an ideal alliance. Elements such as a shared vision, carrier relationships, synergistic products and services, compatible technological capabilities, and new sales markets and channels were present. Hence, it was unlikely for the partnership to fail.

Partnership that Appeared Ideal but Failed

The partnership between Kraft-Heinz and Starbucks appeared ideal. It is logical to argue that the partnership was ideal since it worked successfully for 12 years, after which it failed. The partnership had most of the characteristics of an ideal alliance, such as synergistic products and services, complementary domain expertise, and new sales channels and markets. It is also possible to assume that the partners had a compatible management style given the years the two enterprises managed to work together However, it is difficult to determine whether the partners had a shared vision. This is because the partnership began falling apart when Starbucks decided to opt out of the partnership agreement when it realized it was lurking behind competitors due to the lack of flexibility in the agreement (Shonk, 2022). From this perspective, the alliance was not founded on a shared vision, making it unfavorable for one partner, especially with changes in the business environment of the unfavored partner. As a result, the partnership ended after 12 years of doing business together.

Lesson for HR Executives from Successful Less-than-ideal Partnerships

Less-than-ideal partnerships can succeed. Many businesses get into partnerships without checking off all the seven characteristics identified. The motives and risks involved, as well as the competitive advantage each partner gains, present enough reasons for most businesses to get into partnerships. The success of such partnerships often stems from the willingness of both partners to collaborate and trust each other, particularly with ongoing changes in the business environment. According to Moen et al. (2010), successful partnerships are characterized by partners who are able to work closely and identify capabilities to be integrated into their operations. Hence, the lesson for HR professionals is that potential partnership candidates do not have to possess all the characteristics Kwicien (2012) has listed. Rather, they should think beyond these characteristics and be on the lookout for other capabilities to be explored in their partners.

Ways for HR to Facilitate Original Thinking in Searching for Alliance Partners

It is evident that Kwicien’s (2012) list of characteristics of ideal alliance candidates is not exhaustive, calling for HR professionals to think outside the box. One way for HR to achieve this is to consider a renegotiation period. The Kraft-Heinz and Starbucks partnership illuminates this recommendation significantly because the partnership was doing well until it became inflexible for one party, leading to its disastrous end. Another way for HR professionals to facilitate original thinking is to examine the history of the potential partners in terms of alliances, to objectively determine the probability of the partnership being a success. Lastly, HR should identify the level of control they want their organization to have in the partnership to avoid potential conflict with the partners in future. These factors facilitate “out of the box” thinking because they are not included in the list of characteristics to look out for in potential partners.

Justification of the Use of a Limited HR Budget and Possible Negative Consequences of Encouraging Original Thinking

Partnerships have the potential to succeed or fail. Therefore, it is advisable to not invest a lot of money in pursuing candidates for alliances, especially because even ideal partners lead to failed alliances. HR budget for “outside the box” alliance partners should even be more limited. This is because this strategy is a trial and error one, as opposed to that proposed by Kwicien (2012) that can be described as evidence-based. This trial-and-error aspect comes with uncertainty, which can lead to the negative consequence of failure. At the same time, it may cause HR to miss out on ideal alliance partners that can help the organization create more value than the chosen alliances.
In conclusion, the determination of ideal alliance partners is a sophisticated process because it requires a balance between tried and tested methods, as well as original thinking. This balance can give HR professionals objectivity during the process, leading to successful partnerships.
Kwicien, J. (2012). Finding the ideal partner. Employee Benefit Adviser; New York 10 (2), 44.
Moen, Ø., Bakås, O., Bolstad, A., & Pedersen, V. (2010). International market expansion strategies for high-tech firms: partnership selection criteria for forming strategic alliances. International Journal of Business and Management, 5(1), 20.
Shonk, K. (2022, May 8). Negotiation in business: Starbucks and Kraft’s coffee conflict. PON – Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School. https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/business-negotiations/the-starbucks-kraft-dispute-in-business-negotiations-prepare-for-problems/

Bottom of Form

2nd Colleague –

Sandra Patterson

RE: Discussion – Week 4

Week 4: Ideal Alliance Partners

Describe a successful partnership that you found in your research.
In my research, I found that the main characteristic of a successful partnership is to be able to implement a joint venture of partnerships. Also, a successful partnership needs to have a mutually beneficial relationship and the two companies need to be able to complement each other. For example, Apple and IBM have been able to bring together the analytics and enterprise-scale computing of IBM along with the elegant user experience of the iPhone and iPad to deliver a new level of value for businesses. Apple already had a background in knowing how to give customers what they want, and they could also improve IBM’s image. In addition, IBM’s big data and software gave Apple a big boost.

Cite an example of a partnership that initially appeared to be ideal, but failed and describe how it progressed

Partnerships that failed were between the Dutch oil company Shell and the Danish toy company Lego. They had a branding partnership that seemed alright. In addition, Lego even stamped some authenticity on its race cars and gas station sets. Then Shell was able to connect with customers from the start. So for decades, the partnership worked well, but as Lego toys emerged from the basement and became a global children’s entertainment brand, Greenpeace saw that it wasn’t right for children to play with toys that displayed the name of a petroleum company that had a history of questionable environmental practices. So Greenpeace released a YouTube video that criticized the partnership by enveloping a Lego arctic with thick crude oil, all to a melancholy rendition of the Lego Movie, “Everything is awesome”. The public outcry from concerned citizens and parents was quick and in 2011 the Shell-Lego partnership ended (Kosin, M., n.d.).

Suggest three ways for HR to facilitate original thinking in searching for alliance partners

The three ways that HR can facilitate original thinking when searching for alliance partners are having trust between management teams, the relatedness of partner business, and having access to links to major buyers. In addition, it is also important to have networks and distribution channels, access to local market knowledge, a good reputation, a sound financial status, and share financial risk (Moen, O., 2010).

Justify the use of a limited HR budget in pursuing “outside the box” alliance partners.

The use of a limited HR budget can be justified because it includes sharing costs related to entering a new foreign market. This was found to be the main motive for finding a partner. For example, “Pronto” emphasized minimizing financial risk as being an important motive for forming strategic alliances. “Pronto” mentioned that sharing risk with a partner serves as an incentive to create more sales. Therefore, by engaging in strategic alliances, financial expenses decrease and the risk of diluting investors’ shares in a re-financing process was also decreased (Moen, O., 2010).

What are the negative consequences for HR encouraging original thinking when searching for ideal alliance partners?

The main negative consequences for HR when encouraging original thinking for searching for ideal alliance partners are that original thinking may be misconceived as being more complex and time-consuming than it is. In addition, the most demanding part of the search process is to be able to gain initial contact with potential firms. When obtaining information regarding potential partners, managers need to use accessible low-cost sources. Some other challenges include having a lack of networks. When there is a lack of access to networks for acquiring information and support, it is hard to get in touch with key people when entering new foreign markets. The knowledge barriers that a firm has to consider in a foreign market entry are more often easily handled when forming a strategic alliance with a local firm instead (Moen, O., 2010).

References:
Kosin, M., (n.d.) “Brand partnerships that failed miserably”
https://www.urbo.com/content/brand-partnerships

Mike, (2020) “13 insightful examples of business partnership ideas” digitalsparkmarketing.com/business-partnership-ideas
Moen, O., (2010) “International market expansion strategies for high-tech firms” International Journal of Business and Management, 5(1), 20-30.
Bottom of Form

18 BioPharm International www.biopharminternational.com September 2010

Perspectives on Outsourcing

D
o

n
F

a
rr

a
ll
/G

e
tt

y
I

m
a

g
e

A
fter your R&D team has had a “Eureka!”

moment, the first order of business is

to engage in process development and

production of the product for clinical supply.

Perhaps that moment came a few years ago and

now you need to ensure that you can supply

enough product to meet commercial demand.

Do you choose to build or retrofit your own

manufacturing plant or do you buy via out-

sourcing to a contract manufacturing organiza-

tion (CMO)? This complex decision shouldn’t

be made lightly because it could affect nearly

everything about your business, including your

company’s financial situation, intellectual prop-

erty position, and business and product goals.

THE CURRENT MARKET
In 2009, many small- to medium-sized bio-

pharmaceutical companies struggled to raise

funds for their product development and man-

ufacturing projects, while large, financially

stable companies reigned in spending and

reassessed their pipelines. The building of new

manufacturing facilities decreased, possibly

reflecting changes in business philosophies as

well as a reduced ability by the pharmaceutical

and biotech companies to prog-

ress with construction.1,2 At the

same time, the global CMO market

declined to approximately $2.6 bil-

lion, a reduction from years past.3

In general, CMOs saw a drop in

requests for proposal, more sensi-

tivity to pricing from potential cli-

ents, and there was (and continues

to be) increased level of competi-

tiveness amongst CMOs. At least

one CMO closed its doors (QSV

Biolog ics). Mergers and acquisi-

tions also changed the landscape

of the CMO business, as CMOs of

all sizes and capabilities were integrated into

larger pharmaceutical or biotech companies

( Watson Pha r maceut ica ls/E den Biodesig n;

Merck/Avecia; Recipharm/Cobra).

Today, the business environment seems to

be on the rebound: interest in pipelines includ-

ing biologics remains strong, and for compa-

nies considering outsourcing, CMO capacity

is broadly available (though, perhaps because

of the acquisitions of 2009, capacity may not

remain readily available). Process economics

continue to improve through leaps in produc-

tivity and the acceptance of new production

technologies. There is a wider array of product

types requiring cGMP manufacture, includ-

ing the emergence of biosimilars as originator

product patents expire. But the industry has

learned some valuable lessons as a result of the

tumult of 2009. Companies remain cautious

when evaluating requirements for risk shar-

ing, product quality compliance, and business

partner compatibility. Cost-containment is still

paramount and everyone is looking to manage

their project budgets efficiently.

HOW TO DECIDE
When deciding whether to build your own

capacity or buy it from a CMO, prioritization

of what is most important to you as a com-

pany should be key. Although your available

budget and the return on investment must be

considered, your choice shouldn’t be made on

potential costs alone. Several factors should be

weighed before you make your choice:

• Risk tolerance: Are you willing to put some

(or all) of the responsibilit y for product

development and manufacturing into the

hands of a trusted partner?

• People/exper tise/core competencies: Can

you assemble a team to execute various proj-

ect tasks, or do you require support from an

Build Versus Buy in the Current
Biotech Market Environment
Factors such as production scale and intellectual property must be considered
when deciding whether to build your own capacity or buy it from a CMO

Maria Lusk is a director of client
management at Eden Biodesign, a part

of the Watson Group, Liverpool, UK,

919.806.4234,

[email protected]

20 BioPharm International www.biopharminternational.com September 2010

Perspectives on Outsourcing

external source for things like

basic process development and

manufacturing, or for specialized

activities like fill-and-finish?

• Manufacturing scale and pro-

duction forecast: How much of

your product will you need to

complete your clinical trials or

to support commercial demand?

Will your company have avail-

able capacity at the proper pro-

duction scale to meet your needs?

• Technology: What technologies

will be required to manufacture,

test, and finish your product?

Do you already have the appro-

priate science and equipment in

place? Do you have the budget

and time to obtain the required

technology, or is partnering with

a CMO the best option?

• Ti mel i ne s: Is t here pressu re

from investors or the market to

achieve a clinical or commercial

milestone by a particular date?

How will the required project

tasks fit with the expected time-

line? Will building or retrofitting

a facility fit with the timeline, or

do you need to use a CMO to

achieve your milestones?

• Geography/cultures/currencies/

com mu n icat ion: Does closer

necessar ily mean better? A re

currency exchange rates critical

to your project budget? Are you

prepared to communicate across

various time zones and possibly

cultural influences?

• Regulatory affairs (RA)/clinical

sites: What is your target market

and will you need to include

severa l locat ions a rou nd t he

globe in your plan to submit a

regulatory filing? Do you need

to have your own facility and

R A staff in the same location

as the clinical sites? Is there a

CMO out there that can fully

support your regulatory plans?

• Intellectual proper ty/control:

Does you r compa ny w ish to

control its IP completely, or are

you willing to share your know-

how with a trusted CMO part-

ner? Will you grant a license to

a business partner who will take

your product through to com-

mercialization, or do you prefer

to maintain control, including

manufacturing, throughout the

product’s lifecycle?

• Number of products and their

development/clinical phase: You

should plan for success, but the

“what ifs” of failure also need

to be considered. Do you have

one or two products in the early

phase of development, or is your

por t folio well balanced w it h

products in all stages of clinical

development and clinical trials?

It does not make sense to build

a new facility if your pipeline

cannot support it.

GREENFIELD OR RETROFIT?
If you have the option to build a

facility from scratch (“greenfield”)

or to retrofit an existing space, you

must carefully scrutinize what is

available to support the production

of your product. A greenfield facil-

ity will be fit for purpose from the

beginning, but various challenges

may arise for a company that cho-

ses to build, including keeping to

the construction budget and time-

line; employing people with the

proper background to ensure that

the facility is fit for purpose; and

training staff to install, validate,

and operate equipment. On the

other hand, it may be more dif-

ficult to retrofit an existing space

because the existing space must

be able to accommodate the new

equipment while perhaps main-

taining (and re-validating) some

of the legacy infrastructure (e.g.,

clean-in-place and steam-in-place

skids, utilities, tanks, water supply).

Any compromises in facility design

will need to be weighed against

planned production and regulatory

requirements.

If you do decide to build, consider

that there are several manufacturing

technologies to choose from:

• Disposable, single-use, or limited-

use manufacturing equipment:

Some of the benefits of these

components and systems include

a low initial capital outlay, fast

installation, and reduced routine

operating costs, because these can

reduce or eliminate the require-

ment for cleaning or cleaning

validation. Although the use of a

completely disposable production

train is not common, biotechnol-

ogy companies are beginning to

investigate this as an option.4 For

particular types of products such

as viral vaccines, disposables are

indispensable.

• St a i n le ss – steel systems on ly:

Stainless-steel systems are proven

for manufacturing products reli-

ably and reproducibly; the tech-

nology is common, so process

transfer between manufactur-

ing sites (internal and external)

is relat ively st ra ight for wa rd,

and these systems can support

various types of products. But

consideration should be given

to budget and timeline require-

ments for installation because

they tend to be expensive and

time-consuming to order, install,

and validate. Cleaning will be

a continuous challenge for the

lifetime of the system.

Before making the decision to buy, get to

know your potential CMO partner. Ask questions

and be prepared to answer some, too.

September 2010 www.biopharminternational.com BioPharm International 21

Perspectives on Outsourcing

• Hybrid systems consisting of dis-

posable and stainless-steel com-

ponents: This option seems to be

the most popular for manufac-

turing biopharmaceutical prod-

ucts.4 Systems can be designed

to meet your facility and prod-

uct requirements, using a “best

of both worlds” approach.

Before mak ing your decision

to build or retrofit, consider that

regardless of the equipment you

choose to install, maintenance

and mater ials supply w ill be a

continuous endeavor. Planning

for time and costs to operate and

maintain these systems should be

included in your overall product

lifecycle design.

ARE CMOS THE ANSWER?
An alternative to building or ret-

rofitting a facilit y is to partner

with a CMO. Indeed, innovator

companies have started looking

at the strategic benefits of engag-

ing CMOs to support their prod-

ucts throughout their lifecycle:

in general, it is likely t hat t he

CMO’s facilit y and qualit y sys-

te m s a l r e ad y me e t r eg u l ator y

requirements, including interna-

tional regulations; an innovator

company can choose a CMO in a

particular location (or locations)

as there continues to be signifi-

c a nt C M O b u s i n e s s d e v e l o p –

ment in Singapore, Israel, Japan,

and the BR IC countries (Brazil,

Russia, India, and China); CMOs

are differentiating themselves by

increasingly offering specialized

technolog ies a nd ser v ices, a nd

several major CMOs are engag-

ing the innovator companies by

e x plor i ng a lte r nat ive bu si ne ss

models. In addition, companies

have access to C MO s t hat a re

already prepared to not only man-

ufac t ure a my r iad of produc ts,

but also provide you with tech-

nologies and personnel already in

place to “hit the ground running”

in support of your project needs.

Expression Systems

O ne of t he b e ne f it s of work-

i n g w i t h a C M O i s t h a t i n

s ome i n st a nc e s t he I P hold e r

f o r a p a r t i c u l a r e x p r e s –

s i o n s y s t e m i s t h e C M O

(for e x a mple, G – Pe x /C at a le nt;

G S/ L on z a; BI – H E X / B ohe r i nge r

I n g e l h i e m ; C H E F – 1 / C M C

Biologics), or a technolog y may

be available to the CMO (SUR E

( S e l e x i s), U C O E ( M i l l i p o r e)/

E den Biodesig n) a nd accessi ng

it through the CMO may allow

your company to obtain prefer-

ential business terms. Discussion

of available options that may be

most appropriate for the produc-

tion of your product should be

based on your company’s supply

requirements (current and future);

your available budget; any target

product delivery date(s); and your

c omp a ny ’s r i sk tole r a nc e a nd

regulatory strategy.

NICHE TECHNOLOGIES
There are a few areas of special-

ization that commonly are out-

sourced by innovator companies,

including those who have their

own internal manufacturing capa-

bility. These include:

• Product characterization: This usu-

ally includes highly specialized

analytical techniques such as

mass spectrometry, amino acid

analysis and post-translational

modification analysis. Because

these analytical methods usually

require expensive equipment and

highly skilled technicians, many

companies choose to engage the

services of an external contract

testing house.

• Drug product fill-and-finish: This

can include vial fill and lyophi-

lization, combination products,

and transdermal patches.

• V i r a l p r o d u c t p r o d u c t i o n :

There are several product types

in development requiring spe-

cialized knowledge and exper-

t i se. E x a mple s i nc lude v i ra l

vaccines, gene therapies, and

cell culture products compris-

i ng or made usi ng bac u lov i-

ruses, adenoviruses, or a wide

variety of other viruses. Some

i n novator compa n ies choose

to outsource the production of

these types of product because

of constraints in their existing

facility (e.g., segregation of pro-

duction suites and air handling

units), technical expertise, or

regulatory requirements.

FINAL THOUGHTS
B efore ma k i ng t he dec ision to

b uy, get to k now you r p ote n-

tial CMO partner. Ask questions

and be prepared to answer some

too. You should understand and

t hen sha re what you r expec ta-

tions are for working with your

c hose n C MO, a nd you shou ld

have an understanding of how its

capabilities stack up against your

internal capabilities and project

requirements.

In general, those who choose to

build tend to be the large pharma-

ceutical and biotech companies that

have sturdy pipelines and plenty of

cash on hand. Smaller companies

with fewer products and less cash

often outsource production of their

products. But regardless of who you

are, the choice to build or buy is one

that could have a significant impact

on your present and future busi-

ness success, and therefore should

be made very carefully. ◆

REFERENCES
1. Langer E. Build or Buy? Strategic

Choices in Biomanufacturing.

2010 BIO International Convention.

Chicago, IL. 2010 May 3–7.

2. Bush L. Build or Buy? Strategic

Choices in Biomanufacturing.

2010 BIO International Convention.

Chicago, IL. 2010 May 3–7.

3. Liu C, William D. State of the bio-

CMO market. Contract Pharma.

2010;12(3).

4. Hoffman M. Trends in bioprocessing.

Bioprocessing and sterile

manufacturing 2010 survey. Pharm

Tech suppl. 2010;34(3):s4–s7.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Finding the ideal partner
Kwicien, Jack . Employee Benefit Adviser ; New York Vol. 10, Iss. 2, (Feb 2012): 44.

ProQuest document link

ABSTRACT
For example, if your business currently offers group benefits and you see that your firm is currently passing up a

huge opportunity by not offering voluntary benefits, perhaps partnering with a firm that specializes in these

product lines would make sense. The alliance partner presumably has: domain expertise; carrier relationships;

technological capabilities; and sales channel partners, for example. And the alliance partner candidate in turn may

be looking to affiliate with a larger firm that has: benefits plan design expertise; access to different carrier

relationships; and a large number of group benefits clients who are undoubtedly making plan changes that create

benefits gaps which could be satisfied by voluntary benefits offerings. Clearly these two businesses would be

synergistic, and could greatly benefit from each other’s expertise and relationships. That would also be true of

businesses such as a property and casualty broker, a retirement planning firm, a human resource consulting

practice, or even a small payroll company.

Don’t be afraid to “think outside the box” when it comes to considering potential alliance candidates. Today’s

competitor or administrator or vendor may be tomorrow’s ideal strategic partner depending upon what you are

trying to accomplish. Think broadly and strategically about what will benefit your clients and customers most in

the future. Don’t focus on the way you conduct business today. Think about how you want to be conducting

business two or five years from now and the roadmap that will get you there.

As we talk with benefits advisers all over the country, the forward thinking, select few are looking at their existing

customer base, capabilities, and their own business models and are contemplating methods to adapt their

practices. They are evaluating their client value proposition in light of today’s market realities and emphasizing the

expertise and capabilities that they possess and that will be relevant today and several years from now. I think

there is real value to this kind of self-examination. If you do not think your firm can be objective in evaluating its

capabilities, contact us and we will assist you. An ideal alliance partner candidate would possess some or all of the

following characteristics:

FULL TEXT
Many of us are growing tired of the colder weather just as we grow weary of the grind of health care reform

updates and downdrafts. And all of us are ready for the economy to improve in a meaningful and sustained

manner. In some respects it is our winter of discontent. Not to mix literary references, but it is the best of times

and it is the worst of times. Which will it be for you? That depends on whether your glass is half empty or half full.

And it depends on whether you have a plan to succeed.

Last month we discussed business planning and the need for a succession plan. That seems to have resonated

with a number of you given that so many readers are grappling with how to morph their business model while

growing their revenues. We provided the rationale for having a written business plan and explained that it is both a

strategic and tactical exercise that serves a multitude of purposes. We provided an outline of the potential content,

and we discussed succession planning.

This month, we want to address strategic alliances as one aspect of business planning, expanding your

capabilities, and adapting to the market conditions. In an ideal world, a strategic alliance will permit you to

enhance your value proposition and your client offering without having to build or buy the resources, skills and

capabilities. And ultimately, your alliance partner might be a great merger candidate at some point in the future.

Consequently, developing an alliance might be your personal succession plan or even your exit strategy. So

https://www.proquest.com/trade-journals/finding-ideal-partner/docview/922256598/se-2?accountid=14872

selecting the right alliance partner requires focused consideration of the attributes of the ideal partnering

relationship. The strengths and opportunity areas of your business will determine who the ideal candidate will be.

Evaluating potential candidates is about finding business partners that have complementary practices. This way

both businesses benefit from not having to spend time or money on building a new entity.

Self assessment

As we talk with benefits advisers all over the country, the forward thinking, select few are looking at their existing

customer base, capabilities, and their own business models and are contemplating methods to adapt their

practices. They are evaluating their client value proposition in light of today’s market realities and emphasizing the

expertise and capabilities that they possess and that will be relevant today and several years from now. I think

there is real value to this kind of self-examination. If you do not think your firm can be objective in evaluating its

capabilities, contact us and we will assist you. An ideal alliance partner candidate would possess some or all of the

following characteristics:

* Complementary domain expertise

* Synergistic products or services

* Carrier relationships (preferably not of the duplicative variety)

* Compatible technological capabilities

* New sales channels or markets

* Compatible management style, business model, structure and corporate culture

* Shared vision for the future of both of the businesses involved

Invariably the best place to start is with an honest assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of your business

today. Only you are likely to really know where the gaps in your firm’s capabilities exist and how to bridge those

gaps. And be honest with yourself. Treat it as though your life depended upon it, because in many respects, your

financial livelihood does.

The ideal partner

Depending upon the nature of the strengths and deficiencies of your business will largely determine who the ideal

alliance partner candidate will be for your specific business practice. So the evaluation of potential merger

candidates is largely about finding business partners that have complementary or synergistic business practices,

wherein both businesses benefit from not having to build a new practice with all the attendant time and expense

associated with the creation of a new business entity.

For example, if your business currently offers group benefits and you see that your firm is currently passing up a