My Profile   |   Print Page   |   Contact Us   |   Sign In   |   Register
ASAP Blog
Blog Home All Blogs
Welcome to ASAP Blog, the best place to stay current regarding upcoming events, member companies, the latest trends, and leaders in the industry. Blogs are posted at least once a week; members may subscribe to receive notifications when new blogs are posted by clicking the "Subscribe" link above.

 

Search all posts for:   

 

Top tags: alliance management  alliances  collaboration  partnering  alliance  partners  alliance managers  partner  alliance manager  partnerships  ecosystem  The Rhythm of Business  partnership  Jan Twombly  governance  biopharma  Strategic Alliance Magazine  Eli Lilly and Company  Vantage Partners  IoT  strategy  ASAP BioPharma Conference  healthcare  IBM  NetApp  2015 ASAP Global Alliance Summit  Cisco  communication  innovation  Strategic Alliances 

Coopetition Pulse Survey Request from ASAP EPPP Vantage Partners

Posted By Jonathan Hughes, Partner, Vantage Partners , Friday, December 20, 2019

In today’s rapidly evolving market ecosystems, interactions between companies are neither simple nor static.  Companies engage in both competitive and collaborative interactions with one another; companies that were once considered fierce competitors are now also each other’s most strategic partners.  Consider, for example – Amazon Prime Video and Netflix are fierce competitors in the video streaming space, and Amazon Web Services provides the backend infrastructure for Netflix’s streaming operations. 

Unfortunately, many companies fail to maximize value from their relationships – with resellers, alliance partners, customers, and suppliers – because they fail to employ effective strategies for managing coopetition.  How well does your organization optimize the value of its third-party relationships?

ASAP is collaborating with Vantage Partners in an effort to collect data points from its members which will contribute to the findings of this survey.  The outcomes of this survey will add to ASAP’s growing knowledge base and member resources.

Please consider contributing to this study by answering five short questions about your company’s experiences, capabilities, and strategies for managing coopetition with the Vantage Partners Coopetition Pulse survey:

Take the Vantage Partners Coopetition Pulse Survey now                                                                                          

You can also opt-in to receive our report, incorporating results from this survey, on the value of effectively engaging in coopetition, and what separates market leaders from laggards.  This survey is completely anonymous; responses will only be reported in aggregate and will not be attributed to any individual or company.  

Tags:  Amazon Prime Video  competitive  competitors  coopetition  ecosystems  Netflix  strategic partners  strategies  Vantage Partners 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

Undivided Attention: The BMS-Concerto Story

Posted By Michael J. Burke, Wednesday, September 25, 2019

Nontraditional alliances took center stage (literally) yet again today as the opening session at the ASAP BioPharma Conference 2019 got under way in Boston. Titled “Building Value in Non-Traditional Pharma/Biotech Partnerships: BMS and Concerto Health AI,” the session was moderated by Stu Kliman, Partner at Vantage Partners, and featured David Anstatt, Executive Director of the Center for Observational Research and Data Sciences at Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Jeff Elton, CEO of Concerto Health AI.

            The big pharma company and the oncology data, platform and artificial intelligence start-up have formed a unique partnership—or in Kliman’s words “a super-cool, super-impactful, super-important alliance”—that may well be a harbinger of things to come, not only in terms of linking a large pharma company with drug-related and commercial expertise to a technology company with data-crunching capabilities, but also in terms of the closeness and “intimacy” of the partnership, with its necessary higher-than-average levels of trust and transparency.

            According to Elton, Concerto’s mission is to “think about unsolved problems in oncology” and then to acquire, integrate, and engineer real-world data in order to solve those problems for the benefit of patients. Anstatt described Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS) as “a conservative company interested in agility”—characteristics which led it to look for agile partners with unique data and platform capabilities that BMS could leverage to drive analytics and insights across R&D, and eventually Commercial and Manufacturing.

            While it wasn’t clear from the outset where the agreement would eventually land, the two companies ultimately created a tight-knit relationship and working together model built around integrated working teams, “early and often” iteration, and highly collaborative co-development. “We have plenty of relationships where you throw it over the wall and [you get] what you get,” said Anstatt. “This [isn’t] that kind of relationship.”

            Both stressed that each company has its own specific interests and objectives within and outside the partnership—and are also committed to making the partnership work for both companies. In other words, they started with a philosophy and indeed created a contractual structure where there is literally “no out.” Or as Elton said, “I don’t have exit provisions.” The implication is that when problems arise, they will quickly be put on the table for discussion and jointly addressed. This generates unusual frankness and directness in communication, and by extension a “super high degree of alignment,” according to Elton.

            It also means that when, for example, the contractual minimum has been delivered but more is needed to solve the target business objective, team members from both companies remain focused on driving things forward.

            “We want more heads looking at it, more experts,” said Anstatt. “It has challenged our organization to do things differently.”

            So what could have been merely a vendor-customer type of transactional relationship became a means by which both parties have worked to innovate, with BMS getting the “best of” Concerto’s thinking and expertise and working with this rather unique partner to build something and develop things in an exploratory way.

Additionally, as part of their dedication to making this work, both firms are supported by Vantage Partners, which serves in a “Strategic PMO” role—developing and managing a project plan with a laser focus on value, surfacing and proactively addressing key challenges, issues and risks, and enhancing collaboration at all levels.

            As Kliman noted, like all alliances, nontraditional collaborations can fail if they are not launched in the right way—with teams aligned not just on deliverables but also “what’s the business value and what will it entail to actually deliver it?” The two parties must understand each other’s sometimes differing objectives and thus what’s driving their behaviors, and must also institute a leadership model that goes beyond governance, is focused on effective change management, and allows for continual “co-creation in an iterative kind of way.”

            Finally, Elton observed that the business terms of this alliance were rigorously grounded in business objectives; with business unit leaders highly engaged in the process and Business Development, Alliance Management, and key other groups also frequently consulted. This model may quickly become more common in the life sciences space, as he noted—and that should make for more products and solutions that enhance patient health outcomes. 

Tags:  alliances  Bristol-Myers Squibb  Concerto Health AI  David Anstatt  Jeff Elton  nontraditional collaborations  strategic PMO  Stu Kliman  transactional relationship  Vantage Partners  vendor-customer 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

Building ‘Leadership Muscle’: Get Your Organization Ready for the ‘Partnering Marathon’

Posted By John M. DeWitt and John W. DeWitt, Thursday, March 7, 2019
Updated: Wednesday, March 6, 2019

Welcome to the new partnering race—where everyone is running as fast as they can, frantically trying to catch up to the customer.

Nina Harding, channel chief at Google Cloud, asked an important question at the October 2018 ASAP Tech Partner Forum in San Jose, California: “So how do you work with your partners when the customers are ahead of the ecosystems?” This is indeed an important question, given that “every single thing we do is new,” according to Pear Therapeutics Founder and CEO Corey McCann. He added, in a keynote at the September 2018 ASAP BioPharma Conference, that risks associated with new ventures “conspire to make partnerships not successful.” Stuart Kliman, CA-AM, partner at Vantage Partners, characterized the current playing field as “one of significant and ongoing change, which is driving new forms of collaboration, new kinds of alliances.”

Being successful on such a competitive playing field requires alliance practitioners to build their “leadership muscle,” the focus of the Q4 2018 Strategic Alliance Quarterly cover story, “Building ‘Leadership Muscle’: Are You and Your Alliance Management Organization Ready to Run the ‘Partnering Marathon’?” Building leadership muscle means giving your leaders the strength, flexibility, and endurance to withstand the breakneck pace of modern collaboration.

Why do you need this muscle? No matter your industry, regardless of the specific drivers, it’s almost certain that:

  1. Your company is “remixing” its build-buy-partner strategies;
  2. Partnering activity, especially nontraditional partnering, is exploding for your company;
  3. Your alliance organization faces an overwhelming workload;
  4. Your partnering strategy and execution require new thinking, skillsets, and tools.

If your company and its partners are evolving to catch the customer, then you should (or already will) be rethinking, reorganizing, and relearning:

  • Rethinking. Alliance leaders must continuously rethink partnering strategy and models in the context of disruption and new competitive threats, which are all-but-continuous now.
  • Reorganizing. If you aren’t thinking proactively about how you are organized and aligned to overall company strategy, you can be sure someone else is—and soon you will be thinking about it too, only reactively.
  • Relearning. Alliance executives require new skills and cross-industry knowledge for the new partners and ecosystems they interact with. Many alliance processes and practices require radical rethinking and streamlining if they are to remain useful for managing at the accelerating pace and exploding scope of partnering activities today.

“When all these things are changing around you, you can’t keep doing business as usual,” said Brandeis professor, consultant, and author Ben Gomes-Casseres, CSAP, PhD. “This means very often a change in company strategy [and] if the organization’s strategy is changing, then the alliance organization should change with that. That is fundamental.”

See the Q4 2018 issue of Strategic Alliance Quarterly to learn more about how alliance leaders are rethinking, reorganizing, and relearning while they build “leadership muscle.” John M. DeWitt is copy editor and contributing writer and John W. DeWitt is editor and publisher for ASAP Media and Strategic Alliance publications.

Tags:  alliance  Ben Gomes-Casseres  channel  collaborative  Corey McCann  cross-industry  Google Cloud  leadership  Nina Harding  partnerships  Pear Therapeutics  Stuart Kliman  Vantage Partners 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

The Rugged Biopharma/Tech Topography—What Alliance Managers Need to Know (Part 2)

Posted By Cynthia B. Hanson, Wednesday, October 24, 2018
Updated: Tuesday, October 23, 2018

This extremely well-organized session, “Non-traditional Partnerships:  The Changing BioPharma Alliance Landscape and the Implications for the Alliance Professional and Alliance Management Community” held by Stu Kliman and Ben Siddall of Cambridge-based Vantage Partners, started off by outlining the multiple challenges the biopharma industry faces today, many of which are financial. One major solution to those challenges lies in building more relationships across the lifecycle, specifically with tech, the pair pointed out. They described the complex ecosystem of partnerships that are emerging today and how to determine if it’s right for your company to jump into the trend and/or continue to engage in multi-partner collaborations. Also on the docket was a discussion on effective partnering, which requires the capability to make good choices and the ability to execute.

All major biopharma companies are following the route of building a greater partnering base, they explained. Some of the deals are very large—in the hundreds of millions. Some involve very big players that are exploring and investing in the digital health tech space, such as Apple and IBM. Some are much smaller, or combine large and small companies. No matter the size of the companies involved, when entering the field, “You need to be purposeful and execute quickly,” explained Siddall.

And you need to consider “What makes relationships work—what are the leverage points?” added Kliman.  “As we think about this new landscape of partnering, we are already seeing our clients making mistakes.”

One of the really important areas where companies are struggling in this ecosystem is the process of thinking through whether they should be partnering at all. “Should we just have a vendor relationship? What does partnership mean? Through what process are we making that decision? Where does partnering make sense?” said Kliman, ticking off the kinds of questions that naturally emerge.

“To achieve maximum value, biopharmas must select the right partners to address specific needs and manage these relationships in a way that acknowledges these differences,” Kliman emphasizes. It’s very important in the process to consider the differences between pharma and tech, he said, while flashing a slide.

The pharma cycle has:

  • High levels of regulation
  • Very long (five-plus years) “product” development
  • Management and investors familiar with longer development
  • Purposeful and predictable innovation and co-creation
  • Strong functional stakeholders (medical, legal, compliance, finance)
  • Contractual, asset-based alliances with fixed lengths
  • Well-defined commercial negotiation models with “customers” with significant regulation

The tech cycle has:

  • Variability—many markets are not regulated
  • Short to moderate (1-3 years) “product” development
  • Management/investors who tend to expect quick ROI and steady growth
  • Rapid and agile innovation and co-creation
  • Moderate or weak functional stakeholders (legal, compliance, finance)
  • A blend of formal/informal alliances, often with no fixed length
  • Flexible, market-driven customer engagement processes

Also of great importance is the process of thinking through the best possible partner choices and evaluating them according to the meta-criteria of capabilities. Both presenters recommend considering the marketplace and size of the deals and evaluating potential partners from multiple dimensions that go beyond just the financial impact. Vantage recommends doing this with a four-quadrant methodology that analyzes strategic, financial, operational, and relational fits.

“On the back end, we have challenges during execution to consider,” Kliman added. “Pharma and IT are significantly different. If your core expertise is to identify and manage alliance models that manage different partners, that needs to be brought into upstream activities as well.”

“If you are going to enter into this new world, you want to make sure the relationship is purposeful,” Kliman added. A purposeful relationship contains the following criteria, he said. It should be:

  • Purposeful (focused on a well-defined market; meets patient, partner, and company needs)
  • Choiceful (partnership is worth the effort; has the right answer, among other things)
  •  Designed and developed collaboratively (based on a shared vision; focused on joint gain, among other things)
  • Actively managed (with joint oversight; systems reviews; robust metrics)
  • Building over time
  • Assessed

See part one of this session coverage blog and stay tuned for more ASAP Media team coverage from the 2018 ASAP BioPharma Conference. 

Tags:  alliance  Ben Siddall  healthcare landscape  licensing-type alliance groups  partnering  pharma  Stu Kliman  tech  Vantage Partners 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

The Rugged Biopharma/Tech Topography: What Alliance Managers Need to Know (Part 1)

Posted By Cynthia B. Hanson, Wednesday, September 26, 2018

Business partnering today requires know-how to negotiate nontraditional collaborations for purposes that are different from those of classical business development and licensing (BD&L) alliances. The partnering landscape for biopharma firms is evolving to include a variety of these new kinds of collaborations, according to the session “Non-traditional Partnerships:  The Changing BioPharma Alliance Landscape and the Implications for the Alliance Professional and Alliance Management Community,” led by Stuart Kliman, CA-AM, and Ben Siddall, both of whom are partners at Cambridge, Massachusetts-based Vantage Partners. The two took to the floor at the 2018 ASAP BioPharma Conference to provide key insights on the value and challenges these partnerships bring, especially in the area of biopharma/tech collaborations, which are resulting in very different business models. I had the opportunity to talk with Stu Kliman before the session. Here are some of the insights he provided on this hot topic.

ASAP Media: What is the impetus for your session?

Stuart Kliman: This session is about this ongoing theme of new types of collaborations happening in the healthcare ecosystem. It’s really all about how biopharma and tech are doing more and more together—so new and different kinds of relationships. Those relationships have different purposes. They might differentiate the value proposition of a product or a drug or support outcomes-based deals within the healthcare system. Or they might provide real world evidence and value-based pricing models. This session is about some of the differences between pharma and tech and the different kinds of challenges that organizations need to deal with. About the upstream, how do you start to think about creating these kinds of relationships and the key success factors for doing so? This also raises the question about if and how classic business development and licensing-type alliance groups need to evolve to deal with the changed environment.

We can see from the lineup at this year’s ASAP BioPharma Conference that the biopharma/tech partnering relationship is a very hot topic. How pervasive is the interest on the tech side?

Every tech company that’s out there is trying to figure out how to get into healthcare. It’s this world of FitBit. It’s this whole world of software, hardware, and device companies exploring the healthcare world.

This session is an extension of some of the topics you’ve been discussing and advising on for some time.  What’s different in this session?

There is a lot of focus on understanding the healthcare landscape, defining the problems that the healthcare landscape is creating.  For example, there might be things related to better data, trial efficiency, or the context of a specific therapy, or the need to track value. The first thing you need to do is make sure you have thought through what the different problems are, what capabilities you need to partner with, consider different kinds of players that are out there, and be thinking about the right kind of business model to work with them, and how to design overall relationship around that shared vision.  We will spend more time talking about this notion of problem definition and think through tentative problem types. Does that lead to something that feels like an innovative alliance relationship or a more traditional one?

Stay tuned for more of the ASAP Media team’s coverage of this and other sessions at the 2018 ASAP BioPharma Conference. 

Tags:  alliance  Ben Siddall  healthcare landscape  licensing-type alliance groups  partnering  pharma  Stu Kliman  tech  Vantage Partners 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 
Page 1 of 4
1  |  2  |  3  |  4
For more information email us at info@strategic-alliances.org or call +1-781-562-1630