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  alliance managers  partners  alliance manager  partner  partnerships  ecosystem  The Rhythm of Business  governance  Jan Twombly  partnership  Strategic Alliance Magazine  Eli Lilly and Company  IoT  Vantage Partners  biopharma  Healthcare  NetApp  2015 ASAP Global Alliance Summit  ASAP BioPharma Conference  Cisco  IBM  strategy  Christine Carberry  digital transformation  innovation 

Part III: Stuart and Shawn’s Economic and Financial Metrics—A Dialogue About Social Capital and Alliance Maturity

Posted By Cynthia B. Hanson, Monday, October 24, 2016
Updated: Saturday, October 22, 2016

ASAP presented first-of-their-kind findings from two alliance management research studies during the packed session  “Applying the Latest Alliance Management Research to Your Partnering Practice” at the 2016 ASAP BioPharma Conference “New Faces, Unexpected Places in Partnering: The Foresight to Lead, the Foundation to Succeed,” which took place at the Revere Hotel in Boston. The session unveiled the landmark ASAP-commissioned 6th State of Alliance study, The Economics of Alliances, Social Capital, and Alliance Performance,” researched and authored by Dr. Shawn Wilson, DBA, vice president and general manager at Beaulieu Group (see Part I of this story posted on September 14).

The session also included an insightful presentation by Stuart Kliman, CA-AM, co-founder of Vantage Partners, on his company’s 2015 study “Transcending Organizational Barriers—A Cross-Industry View of Alliance Management Trends and Challenges” (see Part II of this blog post). The presenters then engaged in a conversation about how the two studies dovetail in economic and financial metrics and the ways they can be used to improve company performance. Following is part of their exchange:

Stuart: I think the two studies are very well connected and say very similar things in different ways. One thing that is interesting is that internal operating models haven’t evolved at the same pace as alliancing activity. In the gaps in the internal operating models, we need to rely on social capital. If you start to think of social capital and operating models, organizations need to grapple with how to enable the building of social capital. It’s not easy to do if organizations put people in dilemmas to make social capital decline. The concern I have about the ASAP study is that the language of social capital sounds too individual skill-based, not “How do we build up organizational capability?” We need to make sure executives don’t misunderstand that language.

Shawn: Social capital is an extremely underused term that is much more than individual ties. It’s been used for relationship building, but it’s really precise with dimensions that are unique and powerful when employed…. You need to take all those things into account to appropriately assess the distance between two firms: Is the social capital strong enough to put them together? How do firms assess maturity?

Stuart: Alliance management maturity is a useful concept, and how social capital fits into the model or how to evolve it. Do we assume the commercialization process is taking place only internally, or through partner relationships? There are various attributes of maturity, and when you measure maturity, you want to define your terms. Assuming you have a complex portfolio of somewhat interdependent relationships, what is your maturity level to manage that kind of social capital? Below the surface activities are really interesting to understand, and how they keep us from delivering specific goals.

Shawn: Alliances are outpacing the ability to properly apply physical techniques and analyze, and it’s important to understand the true distance between two companies. How do firms build social capital? That’s a fantastic question. Consider this analogy: My wife and I located back to the West Coast and moved to a neighborhood with an eclectic group—PhDs, opera signers, government workers. If you’d asked me whom the people were that I’d connect with, it wouldn’t have been these folks. But it turns out the structural dimension of the neighborhood was key—who was out in the front yard every night and what is family to me were much stronger predictors of connections.

Stay tuned for additional coverage of the session “Applying the Latest Alliance Management Research to Your Partnering Practice,” which will continue the lively discussion in Part IV between the presenters on how the two studies connect. You can read more on Vantage’s studies by visiting https://www.vantagepartners.com/Articles.aspx

Tags:  Alliance Management  alliance management research studies  Alliance Maturity  alliances  Dr. Shawn Wilson  Economic Metrics  operating models  Social Capital  structural dimension  Stuart Kliman  Vantage Partners 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

Valuable Economic and Financial Metrics to Support Partnering and Revenues, Part II: How Companies Underestimate Alliance Challenges—Especially When Their Operating Model Is the Barrier

Posted By Cynthia B. Hanson, Thursday, October 6, 2016
Updated: Wednesday, October 5, 2016

Alliance management workers and their associated crew members had the opportunity to stock their toolboxes with valuable building instructions at a unique session, “Applying the Latest Alliance Management Research to Your Partnering Practice,” at the ASAP 2016 BioPharma Conference, “New Faces, Unexpected Places in Partnering: The Foresight to Lead, the Foundation to Succeed,” which took place Sept. 7-9 at the Revere Hotel in Boston. The session included a presentation by Stuart Kliman, CA-AM, co-founder of Vantage Partners, on the key findings from Vantage’s 2015 study “Transcending Organizational Barriers—A Cross-Industry View of Alliance Management Trends and Challenges.” The deep dive was part of a two-part presentation that included the findings of Dr. Shawn Wilson, DBA, who introduced an ASAP-commissioned 6th State of Alliance study, “The Economics of Alliances, Social Capital, and Alliance Performance,” which was covered in my previous Part I blog post

“Our findings show that companies are actually doing okay. There aren’t giant failure rates taking place,” observed Stuart Kliman, CA-AM, co-founder of Vantage Partners, during his presentation of Vantage Partners’ latest comprehensive cross-industry study on alliances and alliance management. The 2015 study probes alliance prevalence and success rates through a two-part study methodology that included a 500-respondent survey and practitioner interviews. “ASAP would have been failing if those failure rates hadn’t [improved] over the last several years. Organizations have built up partnering capability, and that has had an impact on success rates.”

Kliman then zeroed in more specifically on the intent of the study: to determine the significance of alliance execution challenges and their consequences; the impact of alliance management maturity on success rates; and potential underlying organizational root causes of alliance execution challenges.

“People still identify alliance execution issues as being the foremost disabler in reaching alliance goals,” he explained of the impetus of the study. “They can identify significant loss of value through poor execution of those issues and spend a lot of time dealing with conflict. Shawn’s iceberg continues to be the underminer of execution.” [Part I of this blog post focuses on Dr. Shawn Wilson’s key findings, which included an “iceberg” analogy of how company issues can be hidden underwater, impacting social capital.]

The purpose of a merger is to eliminate difference, “but alliances are a different ‘berg,” he noted. “Organizations continue to significantly underestimate how challenging they can be. … Internal operating models haven’t evolved in a way consistent with how important alliances are becoming to our strategy.”

Alliance execution was identified in the study as the most frequent cause of alliance failure. Kliman linked that challenge to Wilson’s presentation. “Biopharma companies have internal innovation models, but they don’t spend a lot of time grappling. We actually have organizations involved in partnerships that haven’t evolved over time, so alliance management groups spend a lot of time putting ‘Band-Aids’ on organizations that are regularly undermining execution,” he observed.

He then explained more about the purposes of Vantage’s study:

  • To gain insight into the impact of ineffective management on alliance results
  • Identify new and persistent alliance execution challenges
  • Test hypotheses about the root causes of alliance management challenges

And the key findings of the study…

  • Organizations are increasingly leveraging partnerships to develop relationships for mutual gain, address business challenges, and drive bottom-line results.
  • Some 89 percent of pharma/biopharma respondents consider alliances “very important” or “mission critical.”
  • Some 83 percent of respondents reported having more alliances than five years ago.
  • Some 94 percent of respondents reported effective alliance management substantially increases the likelihood of, or is essential to, successful alliance execution.
  • The respondents reported that 39 percent of alliances fully achieved their objectives, 42 percent partially achieved their objectives, and 19 percent generally failed to achieve their objectives.

When higher maturity and capability grows, there are higher success rates, Kliman concluded. “This is where alliance management groups will lead the way:  One aspect of alliance management groups is to provide direct support to individual alliances and drive the capability. The next big goal is the focus in our second mission: To drive capability with alliances in mind.”

Stay tuned for additional coverage of the session “Applying the Latest Alliance Management Research to Your Partnering Practice,” which will focus on a lively discussion between the presenters and audience participants on how the two studies connect. You can read more on Vantage’s studies by visiting https://www.vantagepartners.com/Articles.aspx

Tags:  6th State of Alliance  alliance execution challenges  alliance execution issues  Alliance Management  alliance prevalence  alliances  biopharma  Dr. Shawn Wilson  management  Stuart Kliman  success rates  Vantage Partners 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

High Tech, Biopharma, and Academia: The Three-Legged Stool of Many of Today’s Collaborations

Posted By Cynthia B. Hanson, Thursday, September 8, 2016

Cross-industry partnering is on the rise, and a sturdy three-legged stool is fast becoming fundamental furniture in the world of collaboration. The hot topic of collaboration between high tech, biopharma, and academia is on stage Sept. 8 at the ASAP 2016 BioPharma Conference “New Faces, Unexpected Places in Partnering: The Foresight to Lead, the Foundation to Succeed” being held at the Revere Hotel, Boston Common, Boston. In this session, three panelists from diverse backgrounds discuss the trend of “Cross-Industry Partnerships: Managing Alliances between Biopharma and High-Tech Partners”: Chaitanya K. Dahagam, MD, global partner innovation executive at IBM Watson Health, who has managed collaborations for IBM; Rachel Sha, transactions lead, business development & licensing, at Sanofi, who has managed a collaboration with Google; Juliana Leung, director, strategic alliances, Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, who has overseen collaborations with Intel, Google, and IBM. I spoke with session moderator Prakash Purohit, managing partner at Raaya Biopharma Consulting, about the thrust of the panel discussion. 

What is the focus of the panel discussions?

They are giving their perspective on how they approached different issues or aspects of cross-industry alliances, how they resolved their questions and concerns, and their approaches in doing so. They describe the metrics and tools they used to resolve these issues. For example, if you take an alliance between high tech and academic institutions, some of the challenges that might crop up are the alignment of goals. Each institution may have their own set of goals for innovation, licensing, fund raising, and publications. So how do they align these goals, especially with high tech, because they are looking to bring to market in the short term, and how will they manage those alliances? We will discuss IBM’s collaborations with healthcare and biopharma: What kinds of challenges did they find in these alliances with various entities, such as clinicians, patients, technical personnel, and consumers? 

Why is this topic of such interest now in biopharma?

This is a brand new session. Recently there has been a recognition of the benefits of developing these alliances for these industries, because they provide clinicians, patients, and doctors with new tools for managing data and genomic data. Considerable growth in the amount of that data has necessitated building cross-industry partnerships in healthcare and biopharma with companies such as IBM, Google, Oracle, and Microsoft. And because today’s data is digital, high tech companies are developing new tools for data analysis for the healthcare industry. 

Where does academia fit in?

We did an ASAP Webinar in May to address the challenges of academia and biopharma alliances. One reason collaborations with academia are happening more frequently is that the tremendous amount of growth of data through genomic or clinical research has become a daunting challenge for both academia and hospitals. High tech is continuously evolving with new software programs, technology, etc. Those collaborations tend to be short because of the dynamics and changes. Biopharma and bioresearch tend to be long-term collaborations because understanding the mechanisms or functions is complicated. It takes time to understand how processes happen. Human trials tend to take place over a long period, some eight to 10 years to go to market. Academic research can happen in a few years of collaboration or it can involve clinical trials with long processes and numerous stagesoften with government funding. That is another way academic institutions come into the picture. They might be involved in a screening process that can be used to create new sets of molecules. Industry partners can then test a number of compounds using that tool for screening purposes. They can determine what works and provide the results to the biopharma industry. 

Tags:  alliances  analytical tools  biopharma  Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard  Chaitanya Dahagam  collaborations  cross-industry alliances  Google  healthcare  IBM  IBM Watson  Juianna Leung  managing data  Microsoft  Oracle  Prakash Purohit  Rachel Sha  Sanofi 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

Ben Gomes-Casseres and the Bayer Team Return to the 2016 ASAP BioPharma Conference with an Interactive Roundtable on Creating Alliance Success

Posted By Cynthia B. Hanson, Tuesday, September 6, 2016

One session at last year’s ASAP BioPharma Conference was such a success that Ben Gomes-Casseres, CSAP, DBA, and the Bayer HealthCare team are returning with the same theme in a new interactive roundtable format. Their deep dive on “Making Better Alliances: How Alliance Management, Business Development, and Legal Can Collaborate More Effectively” will delve into how to successful integrate alliance management, business development, and the legal division to improve alliance success rates.  They return to the stage for this year’s ASAP BioPharma Conference Sept. 7-9 “New Faces, Unexpected Places in Partnering: The Foresight to Lead, the Foundation to Succeed” at the Revere Hotel, Boston Common, Boston.

 

An alliance strategy consultant, professor at Brandeis University in Waltham, Mass., and author, Gomes-Casseres will be moderating the session with Bayer award-winning cross-functional team of John A. Calvo, Karen Denton, CA-AM, and Claudia Karnbach problem-solving an alliance management case. Attendees will be participants, too, tackling tricky alliance scenarios with best practices through dynamic peer-to-peer exchanges. I asked Gomes-Casseres a few questions about the impetus for the session.

 

What are the most common reasons for the high failure rate of alliances?

As a community, we have made great strides in alliance management, but we have been myopic. We need to broaden our view so that we can see more clearly the faults in alliance strategy and design that frequently lead to dissolution.

The reason half of all alliances fail can be largely attributed to poor up-front design, which includes: 

  • Choosing the wrong partner
  • Deciding to partner for the wrong reasons
  • Flawed contract terms

Part of the problem is that alliance management is left out of the early decision process. Part of it also is that alliance management, business development, and legal speak different languages and concerns. Making a robust alliance requires effective collaboration between business development, legal, and alliance management. However, this aspect of internal collaboration often receives less attention from alliance managers than the work they perform after the deal is “done.” That’s one component in critical need of change to improve the success rate.

What solutions will you and the Bayer panel be recommending in your session? 

At the 2015 BioPharma Conference last year, I held a session with Bayer Healthcare executives from alliance management, business development, and the legal division that focused on four areas: 

  • How Bayer’s does the “Deal to Alliance” process, which is a way of describing how to pay attention to both alliance strategy and management
  • The importance of involving alliance management early on in the deal
  • The contributions alliance management makes to negotiation and contract terms
  • How combining these elements builds more robust alliances

This year, I invited the same team that provided a session at the BioPharma Conference last year to come back and work in an interactive continuation of that session with participants. We plan to quickly rehash what was covered last year and then do a deep dive into fresh and innovative approaches. We plan to share a case study and explore in open discussion how to solve it. In the process, participants will learn how alliance management can contribute to business development and contracting and the best way to bring the D2A process back to their own companies.

 What is your goal of the session for participants?

 The goal is simple but essential to having a solid alliance. We want to:

  • Make more robust and quicker alliances
  • Resolve the differences of perspective among functions in alliance design
  • Broaden the role of alliance management in the organization

How does your new book Remix Strategy: The Three Laws of Business Combinations, published by Harvard Business Review Press, promote some of these ideas?

 Remix Strategy provides the tools to fix this problem. The solution lies in designing alliances so that they can be governed effectively to create value. I call it the “Deal to Alliance” process, which means paying attention to both alliance strategy and management. For a healthy alliance, it’s critical to integrate the process of designing and implementing alliances along their full lifecycle.

Tags:  alliance management  alliances  ASAP BioPharma Conference  Bayer HealthCare  Ben Gomes-Casseres  business development  Claudia Karnbach  collaboration  John A. Calvo  Karen Denton  Keywords: Remix Strategy  management  patner  strategy 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

The World of Design Thinking: How It Informs Rethinking Alliance Management for the New Faces and Places of Biopharma Partnering

Posted By Cynthia B. Hanson, Thursday, September 1, 2016

 “Using Design Thinking to Drive Speed, Innovation, and Alignment in Partnering” is a 90-minute, hands-on workshop offered at the upcoming ASAP BioPharma Conference Sept. 7-9 “New Faces, Unexpected Places in Partnering: The Foresight to Lead, the Foundation to Succeed” at the Revere Hotel Boston Common, Boston. Led by The Rhythm of Business’s President, Jan Twombly, CSAP, and Principal Jeff Shuman, CSAP, PhD., the workshop will be taking common alliance problems and advising participants on how to understand and apply an adaptation of design thinking to solve them. This workshop will introduce several different techniques along with multiple examples. In this brief interview, Jan Twombly provides a primer on design thinking and what participants can expect. 

What is design thinking?
It’s a methodology for solving complex problems that’s particularly useful in unfamiliar settings, such as partnering with multiple partners, non-asset based alliances, and partnering with sectors that run on much faster clock speeds. It started out as something used for product design, but the data-driven, user experience-focused practice has become very popular in broader business applications because it centers on innovation and complex problem solving. We’ve adapted it for partnering practices. It zeros in on the user’s needs, wants, and limitations, and makes sure that you are providing an experience they value. The tools and techniques take a user-centered approach to aligning processes and interests between and among partners, especially among new faces. It hones in on core problems so that alliance managers can really understand what is needed to solve for, and makes sure they identify the key assumptions in the proposed solutions to understand the data to be gathered to determine if it’s working or not working. In an alliance management context, the users are primarily your internal stakeholders and the equivalent at partner companies. 

How is it used in alliance management?
If you tie back to the conference theme, we live in a world where we are partnering with new partners and in a time of intense competition to get to market first. More and more in R&D is getting externalized, and to drive efficiency in all these new alliances, we need to evolve how we manage alliances. We can use design thinking to really rethink alliance processes, and thereby drive the speed, innovation, effectiveness, alignment, and efficiency required today. You can use design thinking to ensure that your alliance processes and the way you go about collaborating are providing stakeholders with the partnering experience they need to achieve alliance objectives, given the complexity of the relationships and the fact that there is a race to get the most desirable assets and align with companies that will achieve your objectives. We have looked at various ways to do that—starting with IDEO, which created the methodology that is now adapted and used by companies such as IBM, Google Ventures, Bayer, GE Healthcare, and Novo Nordisk. We’ve studied how they are utilizing it and have applied it to alliances in a method we call Partner by Design. 

You collaborated on an interesting article in the Summer 2016 issue of Strategic Alliance Magazine entitled “Mastering the Speed, Scale, and Scope of Partnering for the Connected Ecosystems of the Fourth Industrial Revolution.” How does design thinking fit into the fourth industrial revolution?
Basically, where it aligns is the fact that partnering processes and the way we have been going about partnering have to change and reflect the speed of innovation today. Partnering processes must reflect the needs of the always-on customer. As business people, we increasingly expect to have the same experience when engaging with companies such as Google, Amazon, or Nordstrom. These are companies known for delivering a great customer experience. This means that we need to change the way we go about partnering. The new business models are outcomes-based, where no value is realized or captured until the end customers get their value. That changes the rules of partnering. You can’t use the same best practices we’ve been using forever. The fundamentals apply, but the new environment demands reflection and evolution. 

Tags:  alliances  Amazon  Bayer  ecosytems  GE HealthCare  Google  IBM  Indutrial Revolution  Jan Twombly  Jeff Shuman  Nordstrom  partner  Partner by Design  partnering practices  stakeholders  Strategic Alliance Magazine  The Rhythm of Business 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 
Page 7 of 10
1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6  |  7  |  8  |  9  |  10
For more information email us at info@strategic-alliances.org or call +1-781-562-1630