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

Morphing Your Partnering Philosophy in a Changing World of Digital Drivers (Part One)

Posted By Cynthia B. Hanson, Wednesday, March 28, 2018

Key sectors of the economy are struggling to adapt to disruptions from digital technologies, such as the cloud. The change is resulting in new business models and service sector opportunities in areas such as security and supply chains. In the 2018 ASAP Global Alliance Summit session “Partnering with Change in a World of Ongoing Disruption,” Joe Schramm, vice president of strategic alliances at BeyondTrust, and Morgan Wheaton, senior director, global partner alliances & channels at JDA Software, addressed the huge transformations taking place in these sectors. BeyondTrust has been a provider of cybersecurity software since 1985. JDA Software is one of the largest providers of supply chain and retail technology. The following insights and excerpts from the session drill down to the core of some of today’s most pressing partnering questions during a time of digital transformation:

Joe Schramm: In traditional channels, it’s about “How much product can I sell?” It’s now about “How much value-added service can I provide?” If you can’t adapt [to that new model], you will be out of business.

Morgan Wheaton: The way that you manage cash flow as a software company has changed to subscription-based. But making that change from large payments to a little every month is a chasm that some companies can’t cross.

Schramm: Our origins are more in network operations, but today, we offer complete solutions in privilege access management (PAM) and are a recognized leader in the market. BeyondTrust’s job is to protect companies from bad actors. There are three types of bad actors: nation state-sponsored actors, such as Russia, China, etc., that are after intellectual property to get trade secrets; “hacktavists”; identity thieves. They break the perimeter through fishing with suspicious email links or known vulnerabilities—such as the Microsoft operating system, Adobe, your car, pacemaker, the Grid—to gain access and control. Once in, they try to hijack privileges. Our technology  is used to reduce administrator rights. What’s new is that more in the manufacturing sector are starting to wake up and realize their IP is being compromised. Meeting those customer needs and adapting to digital technologies required rethinking partnering.

The old paradigm:

  • We sold tools; installed them
  • Partnered with resellers to fulfill
  • Systems integrators viewed as competitive
  • No strategy to extend reach

The new paradigm:

  • We sell complex solutions; partners implement
  • Partners sourcing and implementing new businesses
  • Systems integrators are strategic partners
  •   We can’t grow fast enough

Wheaton: At JDA, our customers are some of the biggest companies out there, such as all 15 of the top car companies; 60 percent of soap makers; 70 percent of prescriptions get filled by JDA software. We are seeing their world being disrupted by the cloud. Consider what Amazon is doing by creating a standard for customers where they can order a product by mail that can be returned in a day. They are setting a new bar, and retailers are undergoing massive disruption and asking “How do we compete with this?” Manufacturers need to innovate and deliver in record time. Distributors must reinvent themselves to remain relevant. What does this mean for JDA? Every CEO out there is rethinking their supply chain. We are seeing very much the same things at supply chain companies as they are at security companies. In the old paradigm, systems integrators were viewed as competitors. We partnered opportunistically—there was little standardization.

The old paradigm:

  • We offer turnkey solutions
  • Service partners only extend JDA delivery capacity
  • Systems integrators viewed as competitive
  • No need to extend reach
  • Partner opportunistically

The new paradigm

  • Together we grow the pie
  • Partners help to complete the solution
  • Systems integrators are strategic partners
  • We can’t grow fast enough
  • Partner with intent

We had to reinvent our program with three components:  Consulting partners, to help with implementation and customer strategy; tech partners; selling partners.

So how do you recognize and strategize for the current and anticipated future paradigm shifts? Schramm and Wheaton took turns answering this question, which was relevant to both industries:

  • Practice Open Communication: with partners, customers, and industry leaders.
  • Observe the Competition: What are they messaging? Are you losing your partners?
  • Watch Market Makers.
  • Watch Start-ups—how they are disrupting and how they are doing.

Part II of this post will address how key cultural changes are needed to better enable new partnering models. 

Tags:  alliances  BeyondTrust  channels  communication  cybersecurity software  disruption  implementation  JDA Software  partner  Partnering Philosophy  partners  servic  start-ups 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

How Contract White Space Becomes the Gray Area of a Deal (Part Three)

Posted By Genevieve Fraser, Tuesday, October 31, 2017
Updated: Saturday, October 28, 2017

Panelists were discussing the very different worlds of deal making vs. alliance management when ASAP Media left off in Part Two of our coverage of “Reading Between the Lines: Living in Contract White Space” explored the “gray area” between contract signing and actual implementation on day two of the 2017 ASAP BioPharma Conference September 13-15 in Cambridge, Mass. USA. The presenters were Christine Carberry, CSAP, chief operating officer at Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Andy Eibling, CSAP, vice president of alliance management at Covance, the drug development business of LabCorp, and Brian O'Shaughnessy, a partner at Dinsmore & Shohl and president and chair of the board of LES, the Licensing Executives Society (USA and Canada), which focuses on licensing and commercial transactions involving intellectual property (IP) rights. Now the panel is discussing the handoff from deal to alliance management implementation of the partnership.

 

How does effective handoff happen?

  •  Knowledge transfer.
  •  Art meets science.
  •  The deal leader needs to have significant EI, emotional intelligence.
  •  Sometimes working through difficulty can be bonding.
  •  You don’t want everybody involved in every step, but you need an effective handoff. Bring in the alliance early on and as things wrap up, so the knowledge transfer occurs. Make a note of potential problem areas.

O'Shaughnessy: “There are problems with getting a person to read the contract. He tells me ‘he trusts me,’ but this is HIS business. He needs to bear down and read the terms. Too often a client signs off on details but has never read the contract. That’s when you need to document the visits and confirm the statements he made. Granted, this is difficult to do diplomatically. Frankly, if the boss isn’t going to read the contract, the boss isn’t going to read the contract.”

 

Carberry: “The executive sponsor, whoever that person is, needs to take ownership of it. What will this mean in a year’s portfolio? Is this a big deal or small? If this is a primary revenue driver, you will pay greater attention.”

 

“In terms of anticipating problems, a lot has to do with how you get started. Building a relationship in the beginning is helpful when things get contentious. Everyone should state what they consider to be successful and what concerns them, so everyone has an understanding. Whatever the ‘noise is in your head,’ get it out on the table. Think about having everyone come up with an evaluation of the project, then share it. In the end, the value may be the same, but they used totally different assumptions to get there. Also, set up an easy achievement to drive momentum.”

 

“Remember, people who created the deal are not the ones who implement it. It’s important to reset it with the people involved with the process. You need to get the teams together to discuss process and reinterpret the contract based on what each believes is the deal.”

 

O'Shaughnessy: “The third phase is when the respective implementers and deal makers get together to see if there are fundamental differences. Deal maker drafters will hear the implementers out. Feedback is critical. Don’t drag the last contract out as a basis to begin; instead, examine hot buttons. Sometimes you discover ‘the last time we did this we got burned,’ so seek to avoid it again.”

 

Takeaways:

  •  Success means: parties up-front agree on a set of values.
  • Nothing was agreed to ‘til everything was agreed.
  • Look at everything in development, then made sure it sticks—is held together.
  •  Put details into a ledger.
  •  Teams work through areas as they come up and acknowledge that processes happen within companies so they can move on with negotiated details working in parallel.
  •  Autonomy is a good thing. If lawyers create a massive structure, the results may be too bureaucratic. Flexibility is needed to reflect variables that crop up.

How can we apply previous experiences to future deal negotiations?

According to the audience, there’s a need for “common learning,” sharing it back. You need to discuss what could have been done differently and, in the end, retain some collective understanding, such as capturing what is of value and problem areas.

Tags:  ”First patient  alliance management  alliances  Andy Eibling  Brian O'Shaughnessy  change agent  Christine Carberry  compromise  contract  Covance  Dinsmore & Shohl  due diligence  emotional intelligence  first visit”  governance  Implementation  Keryx Biopharmaceuticals  Licensing Executives Society 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

How Contract White Space Becomes the Gray Area of a Deal (Part Two)

Posted By Genevieve Fraser, Monday, October 30, 2017
Updated: Saturday, October 28, 2017

This picks up where ASAP Media left off in Part One of our coverage of “Reading Between the Lines: Living in Contract White Space” explored the “gray area” between contract signing and actual implementation on day two of the 2017 ASAP BioPharma Conference September 13-15 in Cambridge, Mass. USA. The presenters were Christine Carberry, CSAP, chief operating officer at Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Andy Eibling, CSAP, vice president of alliance management at Covance, the drug development business of LabCorp, and Brian O'Shaughnessy, a partner at Dinsmore & Shohl and president and chair of the board of LES, the Licensing Executives Society (USA and Canada), which focuses on licensing and commercial transactions involving intellectual property (IP) rights.

All presenters agreed that in general no one talks about when things go wrong. People focus on success. But change agents happen. People need to think more about likely situations that arise, about what can change. According to Carberry, biopharma negotiations offer special problems when teams spend 80 percent on work related issues and 20 percent on the exit. The exit can be what’s tricky.

“How should you run an alliance?” Eibling asked, shifting the focus of the discussion. “There’s a boilerplate we’d like to follow vs. figuring out what happens when everything blows up. Think of audit provisions; once you pull the trigger, everyone shifts into distrust mode.”

He reminded them that governments impose transparency and accounting, a carefully defined system of disclosures so the process is established. But it’s your responsibility to address issues early on, before they become an issue. 

“Trust is everything in an alliance. Trust is key,” Eibling stated. “Some think controls run in the face of trust, but it’s the opposite. The process helps establish trust building. If you have trust, you can more easily get to benchmarks. My motto is ‘no deal without a meal.’ Sit down over lunch with your counterpart to build trust.”

 

Shifting focus once again, Eibling questioned what’s missing from agreements. “External communications need to be on-going. ‘What’s material and what’s missing’ is what’s needed when everything blows up. The question is, what can be done during the deal making process to improve success?”

O'Shaughnessy: “Licensing is a full contact sport and needs the full team—lawyers, tax experts, scientists, business folks. Speaking from a LES prospective, they don’t appreciate the growing field of alliance management, so there’s not an effort to bring alliance into the deal process. They need to understand that an alliance team can analyze the details to see problem areas.”

“I had no idea what went on after the deal was signed.”

“Too often, LES views alliance management as a hindrance, as the folks who throw up roadblocks. Alliance management needs to stay in the background and define simple defining principles: This is how we work—from cultural differences to operating principles. When in the grey space, the alliance team will make it work, will look to principles to get through the grey area.”

Eibling: The alliance will shepherd the process, but the alliance needs to remain in the background and let others negotiate. The alliance folks tell them to finish the deal and then we’ll focus on governance, commitments etc. Meanwhile, they need to remain vigilant to see what was contentious, to remain alert to problem areas.

This interaction continues in Part Three of ASAP Media’s coverage of the 2017 ASAP BioPharma Conference session, Reading between the Lines: Living in Contract White Space.”

Tags:  ”First patient  alliance management  alliances  Andy Eibling  Brian O'Shaughnessy  change agent  Christine Carberry  compromise  contract  Covance  Dinsmore & Shohl  due diligence  first visit”  governance  Implementation  Keryx Biopharmaceuticals  Licensing Executives Society 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

How Contract White Space Becomes the Gray Area of a Deal (Part One)

Posted By Genevieve Fraser, Friday, October 27, 2017
Updated: Thursday, October 26, 2017

There’s a place—a twilight zone— that exists between the high “expectations of a deal well struck and the hard reality of implementation. “Reading Between the Lines: Living in Contract White Space” explored that “gray area” on day two of the 2017 ASAP BioPharma Conference September 13-15 in Cambridge, Mass. USA. The presenters were Christine Carberry, CSAP, chief operating officer at Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Andy Eibling, CSAP, vice president of alliance management at Covance, the drug development business of LabCorp, and Brian O'Shaughnessy, a partner at Dinsmore & Shohl and president and chair of the board of LES, the Licensing Executives Society (USA and Canada), which focuses on licensing and commercial transactions involving intellectual property (IP) rights.

O'Shaughnessy cut right to the chase. “Typically, the problem is that people negotiating the deal are talking the same lingo. You need to look at common deal terms that cause collaborations to falter. Too often short shrift is given to definitions, to defining terms. Spelling out definitions doesn’t seem important because you and the others know what you mean. But contracts need to be written so non-experts understand. Spend time writing definitions in plain, simple terms. For example, technology patent and patent applications are two different things.”

 

“Three months from the signing of the contract, you will not be living in the world you had envisioned,” Christine Carberry added. “When you are caught up in the excitement of creating the deal, it’s natural to avoid looking at inherent risks. The likelihood is that X drug may not move to blockbuster status. Then, how do you navigate? How do you avoid having the reality of the situation, the reality you must deal with, keep from pulling people apart?”

 

“There areas often missing that are not even gray space—with nothing there to give guidance,” Andy Eibling began, throwing it out to the audience. “Name some areas in a contract that cause issues. What are your pet peeves?” Responses included:

  • Milestones based on study initiation (When does a study really start?)
  • “First patient, first visit” doesn’t mean what most thinks it means.
  • Every single compromise is going to come back—because the people who work on the contract were not part of the compromise.
  • Implementation time is not realistic. The contract states six months, but WE KNOW it takes nine months.
  • There are definitions within definitions. Check to see if the contract is still in alignment.
  • Due diligence—Best efforts—Clear process is needed for dispute resolution. The idea that you will just specify “arbitration” doesn’t cut it. You need to set up a process.

 Carberry rattled off a few scenarios: You couldn’t come to agreement, so you punted. Even worse, you know going into a contract, tension exists, so you opt not to deal with it. And, it’s contentious because you know it’s likely to happen!

 

“You can come up with complicated solutions that sound great—but how to execute it is the issue. It’s important that alliance people are brought in early to assist with ironing out conflicts,” she emphasized.

 

Let LES, the Licensing Executives Society draft the front end and the company draft how it will work, O'Shaughnessy suggested. “How do we prevent this and that from becoming a problem—such as scheduling meetings? And there’s always a risk of shifting provisions. Business people like to say, ‘that’s all legal stuff. Let the lawyers figure it out.’ But what they figure out might not align with the business model. If I absorb more risk, I need more attention.”

Tags:  ”First patient  alliance management  alliances  Andy Eibling  Brian O'Shaughnessy  Christine Carberry  compromise  contract  Covance  Dinsmore & Shohl  due diligence  first visit”  Implementation  Keryx Biopharmaceuticals  Licensing Executives Society 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

ASAP Announces Alliance Excellence Awards Finalists Slated to Take Center Stage at the 2016 ASAP Global Alliance Summit

Posted By Cynthia B. Hanson, Monday, February 8, 2016

At this year’s much-anticipated ASAP Alliance Excellence Awards, some of the world’s most partnering-savvy companies are vying for center-stage recognition of their exceptional performance in the world of alliance management. Officially announced this week in an ASAP press release, the three categories of awards will be presented March 1 at the 2016 Global Alliance Summit, “Partnering Everywhere: Expert Leadership for the Ecosystem,” March 1–4 at the Gaylord National Resort & Convention Center, National Harbor, Maryland, USA. 

The finalists for the Individual Alliance Excellence Award are: AbbVie-Genentech Roche, Cisco-Dimension Data, International SOS-Control Risks, and Panduit-General Cable. One of two candidates will receive the Innovative Best Alliance Practice Award: National Instruments or Takeda Russia. There are three contenders vying for the Alliance Program Excellence Award: Bayer, Huawei Technologies, and National Instruments. 

“The Alliance Excellence Awards highlight the best and brightest in partnering and alliance management. The significance of these awards cannot be underestimated,” remarked Mike Leonetti, president and CEO of ASAP, in last week’s press release. “These awards are ‘proof in the pudding’ that effective leadership, a strong alliance management function, and sophisticated partnering practices pay off in successful, healthy alliances. The awards highlight the efforts, achievements, and innovations that improve strategy and productivity of partnering programs, with benefits to partnering companies’ bottom lines as well as to society in general. These finalists were selected because they have proven their worth as leaders in the field of alliance management.” 

The awards are presented to companies that excel in:

  • Leading, planning, and implementation with compelling and measurable results
  • The use of new, individual alliance management tools or processes that have an immediate and powerful impact on the organization and/or discipline of alliance management
  • Implementation and management of alliance portfolios that demonstrate consistent success, persistence in overcoming obstacles, and creative and/or efficient use of tools, professional development/certification, processes, and other elements
  • Creativity and out-of –the-box thinking that has evolved the art and science of alliance management

 For more information about the finalists and their achievements, read the full announcement on PR Web newswire at http://www.prweb.com/releases/2016/02/prweb13196184.htm

Tags:  AbbVie-Genentech Roche  alliance management  alliance portfolios  ASAP Alliance Excellence Awards  Bayer  Cisco-Dimension Data  Huawei Technologies  implementation  innovation  International SOS-Control Risks  National Instruments  Panduit-General Cable  partnering  Takeda Russia 

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