Prior to all joint governance meetings with partners, Aventis meets with internal stakeholders to discuss and resolve internal disagreements so that issues can be resolved without making them uncomfortable for partners. Since the beginning of this practice, partner companies have found that Aventis is more consistent and reliable in providing resources and meeting deadlines, making it a more attractive ally. The impact of forming a strategic alliance may be that each of the companies can achieve organic growth faster than if it had acted alone. When companies can make such a change of direction, they significantly improve their chances of success – a conclusion based on our 20 years of experience working with successful and failed alliances and on systematic research we have conducted over the past six years. In this article, we will illustrate the five key principles of this approach to alliance management using the example of several companies we have worked with. To reliably achieve higher success rates with their alliances, companies need to focus on five principles that complement traditional consulting. This means that many companies are struggling to manage their alliances as they envisioned them, and many of these partnerships are not achieving their defined goals. Common mistakes include: A strategic alliance will usually lag behind a legal partnership, agency, or corporate partnership. Typically, two companies form a strategic alliance when each has one or more business assets or expertise that helps the other by improving their business.
The partners invest financial and personal assets in the group of companies, equally or proportionately, in accordance with the terms of their partnership contract or contract. The assets belong to the partnership, and all cash gains and real estate acquired by the company are also considered property of the company. In alliances, the parties contribute certain assets and finances under the terms of the alliance. For example, if two companies form an alliance to develop new products, the alliance members may agree to provide the necessary resources for the project. However, these resources do not belong to the Alliance. With a lot of time and attention focused on reaching an agreement that sends the message that differences are bad, this tends to drive conflicts underground. In the analysis phase, the performance objectives of the partnership are defined. These objectives are used to determine the broad operational capabilities required. During the selection phase, these performance objectives are addressed as criteria for evaluating and selecting potential alliance partners. The activities most often associated with the analysis phase are as follows: However, within a few months, each company`s unique skills became sources of resentment rather than success factors. A year after the alliance, the partners barely spoke to each other. The company, which was considered « agile, » was now considered « sloppy and reckless. » His partner was no longer « process and quality oriented », but a « bureaucratic dinosaur » who could not make a decision.
In two years, the alliance had been dissolved. Some types of strategic alliances include: The relationship can be short-term or long-term and the agreement can be formal or informal. In the event of replacement of any provision of this Agreement, all other terms and conditions shall remain in full force and effect and shall not be modified. Once an agreement has been reached, the company conducts a systematic « alliance relationship launch ». This process, which typically lasts four to six weeks, includes meetings where partners explore potential challenges of collaboration, examine differences, develop common protocols to manage these differences, and establish mechanisms for their day-to-day work. Time is spent on how each company makes decisions: What are the approval steps required for different types of decisions? Are there formal review committees that make certain decisions and, if so, how often do they meet? Is the daily decision-making culture consensual or hierarchical? Such conversations are valuable in preventing frustration and conflict later on, but Schering-Plough takes the discussion even further: among other things, the most important decisions likely to be made are detailed and determined who, in the alliance team, will make them; with whom these persons should be consulted; which must be approved separately by the directors of the partner companies; And so on.. .