I was just reading Michio Kaku’s 2008 bestseller, Physics of the Impossible. He’s an excellent writer, researcher and scientist. For those that don’t know him, even if you don’t have a scientific or astrophysicist bent, you’re sure to find his writings stimulating. He draws from some of the greatest scientists in the world, so it’s not just his thinking.

In this book, he talks about three levels of impossibilities. A Class I impossibility is something that we can’t do now, but probably will come about in few generations to a few hundred years, such as teleportation and anti-matter engines. A Class II impossibility is one that may take man a few millennia to achieve – such as hyper travel, and a third level is way, way out there in the future –if at all. They sound like forever, but in universe time, it’s not even a blink of an eye.

As I was reading his book, I kept analogizing on a few things. One of which is, what does business look like in five to ten generations from now and what does it look like in a few thousand years when some Class II impossibilities start kicking in?

It’s difficult at least for me to think that far in the future. But let’s look at some Class I impossibilities and see where that leads us.

Suppose we solve three of the ten Class I impossibilities that Kaku proposes.

• Teleportation of inanimate objects
• Advanced intelligent robotics and nanobots
• Antimatter power sources

All three have projects in the works and are rudimentarily being done.

Now let’s take a look at these three in combination. Teleportation would ease the distribution of small quantities of objects worldwide or speed the movement of small critical items in the event of an emergency.  Advanced robotics could provide us with the ability to move large objects and quantities of materials safely and without intense human intervention. Finally harnessing anti-matter (or perhaps fission) as a usable and viable power further decreases our dependence on expensive and depleted fossil fuels. Businesses such as trucking and transportation could look quite different as well as construction if it employed nanobot technology.

I am also intrigued by how we will be marketing and selling products and services and how we communicate, distribute and record these events. Obviously computers will be a major element, but even computers may look or feel different when quantum computers take root. And what will be the effect of virtual businesses on our society and how we interact with another. It leaves me at least with a lot of unanswered questions, and a lot of conjecture. But I’m not sure the Brave New World of Huxley in 2540 AD, some 500 years from now, withstands the acid test of future personal relationships anymore. I think there is more to hope for, a lot more!

I spent a couple of days at the big annual event for bankers last week in Boston hosted by BAI.  They also had some high quality speakers, two of whom, Jack Welch and Al Gore,  I’ve had the brief honor of meeting previously. The third was Ram Charan, noted author and educator, and as this is the first time I heard him in person, I must say that he was excellent. All of them are plugging their books and writings including AL Gore’s latest, Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis. But that is expected and I look forward to reading VP Gore’s latest.

What I thought was to a degree absent was a session on how cloud computing can assist banks, especially those that fall in the below $10B in asset range. These could be represented by banks, Savings and Loan’s (S&L) or Credit Unions (CU).

Here is what I thought was there and what was missing:

Some banks are using cloud computing for the traditional Software as a Service (SaaS) capabilities including sales such as Salesforce.com.

Some are using it to augment some of their infrastructure needs including data storage.

A few are using it to augment website capabilities.

What I didn’t hear was a bank or other financial or lending institution that started its core operations around cloud computing. And I think there are still a lot of valid concerns why this is not happening as rapidly as in some other areas of business. Let are my thoughts:

First, banking is highly regulated and likely to get more so, not less. Consumer and depositor data is closely monitored as part of the Gramm Leach Bliley Act. Cloud computing opens some doors to loss of data security.

Second, the OCC and OTS have considerable oversight in regular audits of large and small banks. Getting caught in a bad audit is not something anyone wants.Cloud computing may not lend itself well to an intense audit.

On the other hand banks, new, upcoming and traditional all can benefit from this approach. Traditional banks get to employ new services faster and quicker, while new banks don’t have to invest in a lot of Information Technology (IT) assets to get moving.

I would hope that next year we’ll hear more concrete stories of how banks are employing and deploying greater and wider services through cloud computing providers such as Amazon, IBM, Google, Oracle and Microsoft, as well as some of the outsourcers, Independent Software Vendors (ISV’s) and bank services providers including FIS, Metavante, Harland and Jack Henry.

If you would like further information on this topic, please feel free to contact me at ralphs@rgsmanagement.com 

As I continue to talk to a number of technology companies about their winning strategies and best practices in building partnerships and alliances, I keep hearing about some of the critical tactics that will work in your behalf and hopefully keep you in your position.

Note that I said tactics – not strategies or best practices – that can keep you successful. I’ll leave strategy and best practices for another blog.

Here are 5 that I believe are important to help you keep your position.

• Target a 90 day win
• Target high and deliver in phases
• Target the largest customers in your market
• Target your sales force and your partner’s sales force
• Target maximum control

Now here is more of what I mean.

Thinking beyond 90 days in today’s economy is a recipe for disaster. Few companies can afford that luxury, not even the largest ones. While good alliance managers like to think strategically, this is not the time to put all your eggs in this long term basket.

Thinking big in terms of a win means delivering the highest value and hopefully highest revenue joint sale that is realistic and still fits in the 90 day-ish window. Thinking big also keeps you in front of all the right people – sales, management, marketing and customers. But think in chunks of deliverables that are realistic and that can show measurable and incremental success to everyone.

Thinking in terms of large customer deals means that you are targeting the highest end of your target market. If you need to target large companies and your partner is targeting companies in the mid bracket, you could have a disconnect. Make sure you’re both on the same track and can deliver with the same level of customer.

Thinking in terms of getting the buy-in and participation of both direct sales forces has always been important. This has not changed today and may be even more critical in making the right things happen. And if the right things don’t happen, having the sales buy-in may provide a little extra buffer for you in the event of problems.

Thinking in terms of maximum control means keeping control of as many of the elements of success as possible. If you expand your partnership beyond two partners, or if you require too many resources, or input from a third party, you will begin to lose control. That goes for complex projects or ventures that require too many pieces of your own organization to deliver on.

This is a tough market and alliance managers are under a lot of pressure. I’d like to hear what you believe are most critical to your immediate success.

Last week I wrote about what I learned from talking to 25 companies on how social media was being used by them individually, as well as how they used it to enhance their business alliances and partnerships. Mostly I discussed the partnering aspects.

I thought that this week I would back up a little and discuss 5 points to consider when building out a social media program for your business.

• First, with any business initiative, start with a vision, plan, and mission. Sounds like a lot, but this could be a few paragraphs or one-pager. You already have a business plan (I assume), so this is just meant to complement it Not complicate it. Try to answer – “What is my prime purpose in using social media?” Influence customers to buy, provide better customer service and experience, build a new lead channel, etc. Then build your one-pager. Your prime purpose may change or expand in a year, so understand that this is dynamic.
• Second, if you’re not top management, then the above will not be very credible until the owners or senior management buy into it. Social media has the ability to touch and influence almost every area of your business operation, as sales, marketing, HR will all be affected by your strategy. You will need multiple layers of support to get this started – but not necessarily everyone.
• Third, think about how your vision will be turned into policy and action. You will need to establish some policies and guidelines about what’s inbounds and what’s out of bounds in your social media strategy. For instance, what guidelines do you need to establish around talking about new products or internal affairs or finances. These are important areas that can affect you legally, financially, and in your ability to compete.
• Fourth, can you track who’s saying or writing what? And what help or guidance are you providing them? What tools, training and programs might help them help your customers or clients better, or do their job better? There’s a lot of territory to cover on this fourth bullet and my next blog will talk about how to help you get connected to the right resources.
• Fifth, and this is the one I like least, but is necessary. What are the consequences for breaking policy? Even in LinkedIn, some groups have policies that do not allow links in their discussions. Most groups don’t, but those that do will or can expel you from the group. LinkedIn itself has certain policies that will be cause for your expulsion. If you plan to have consequences, then make sure they’re communicated well and backed up with adequate training. This topic alone is worthy of another blog and I would appreciate other thoughts on the subject.

As examples of how to get started or just start your thinking along these lines, take a look at IBM’s guidelines. Or check out Sun Microsystem’s guidelines – one of my former employers – where the CEO has (or had) a highly readable and followable blog. Since Sun is in the midst of being purchased by Oracle, I’m not sure where his future writings will go, but it might be worthy to check out his past material at http://blogs.sun.com/jonathan/ as an example of an executive communication blog.

Look forward to your comments and thoughts.

After taking the Labor Day week off, it’s back to writing my regular weekly blog and maybe even catching up sometime by doubling up on my blog one week soon.

In any case, this is a continuation of the theme of 5’s on alliance building and partnerships. This one focused on Alliance Warning Signs. So here are several of my favorite warning signs. I look forward to reading about yours.

I think there are quite a few warning signs that alliance managers have to be aware of. Part of the problem in any relationship, personal or business, is recognizing which ones are most telling and which ones appear to be important but can be dismissed. Some apparently troubling signs initially can actually be double entendres.  Notice how each of these signs can be interpreted differently and produce equally positive or negative results.

Significant Financial Changes: this is easier to read when your alliance partner is a publicly traded company. Earnings reports, stock prices, etc are powerful barometers of business performance. A couple of quarters of negative earnings can spell cutbacks or imply customer defections. On the other hand, perhaps poor earnings were due to an inflated acquisition or writedown. So it’s important to look at the situation thoroughly. Even if it is negative, it might turn out that your partner will turn to their best partnerships and if you’re in that class then indeed this could easily turn out to be a clear win for you – especially if they make a comeback.

Senior Management Change: this is an obvious caution sign. New CEO’s often bring in teams that are more closely aligned to their past history and strategy. If your new partner CEO had a closer relationship with your competitor for instance, that could easily spell trouble, especially if your relationship is not well secured. On the other hand, change in upper management could just as well be a plus for you if the tenor of the new team has a positive past with you or your company.

Internal Turnover: always be on the look out for internal changes, especially when it comes to either the key people you deal with or other key influencers on your partner’s team. On the other hand again, if you’ve been stagnating lately with some of your partner’s counterparts – a change could be just what the doctor ordered.

Customer Complaints: perhaps the number one area of caution is when a joint customer is undergoing issues with your partner or their products or services, particularly if those problems also impact you and that same customer. Nothing seems to derail a partnership more than a customer with problems. On the other hand, solving customer issues with your partner quickly can be a powerful force for your future joint efforts and forge an enduring bond.

Significant Market Condition Changes or Major New Competitors: we’ve seen a lot of this occurring over the past 12- 18 months. Many companies quickly righted their ship while others slowly struggled and muddled through these business situations. Most importantly, negative economic and competitive situations will always arise. It’s how you work through them with your partner that ultimately matters most and getting through some tough and trying situations usually builds character and a lasting relationship in the long run.

Let me know what your favorites are.

In keeping with my theme of 5, here are some thoughts on the top 5 traps to avoid (or potential problem areas to stay clear of) when it comes to partnerships and alliances.

• Not monitoring change signals from your partner
• Failing to negotiate when it’s necessary
• Trying to represent that you or your company can do more than you really can
• Waiting for your partner to dictate the direction that your partnership takes
• Focusing on individual success and not the partnership

Let’s explore each one a little further.

Trap No. 1:  Not keeping a close eye and ear on what your trusted partner is doing in the marketplace is a recipe for getting blind-sided. I’ve been involved first hand with an important alliance that we expected to move into an acquisition deal. Our discussions turned south when our partner was acquired by a larger partner of theirs, all while they were in the midst of negotiation with us. And we were even partners with their acquirer. That was a costly lesson to learn.

Trap No. 2:  Similar to trap #1, failing to recognize when to negotiate new terms and conditions, or direction, can result in unwanted results and outcomes, at least for one of the partners. When there are substantial changes in business conditions, such as when new competitors enter your field or there are a bevy of acquisitions, don’t wait to look at your partnership T’s and C’s until the contract is up for renewal. That’s usually too late.

Trap No. 3:  Trying to represent that your company can take on more than it is capable of or that your every move is firmly backed by everyone in your company can easily set you up for a fall. It’s important to aspire to success but success is more frequently attained through continuous achievement and hitting milestones than with over zealousness or boasting.  Don’t be enticed to offer your partner more than what you can realistically deliver, and target modestly at least initially. Under-promise and over-achieve as the expression goes.

Trap No. 4:  The fourth trap is allowing the direction of the partnership to be dictated by your partner, especially if they are the larger-dominant one. While you may have to submit to some of their terms and conditions, or risk endless tie-ups and delays with their legal department that most smaller companies can ill afford, you must equally dictate the tempo, rhythm and culture of the partnership. If it sounds like a dance, it is.

Trap No. 5:  While it’s obviously never wrong to focus on your success, if it’s always coming at the expense of your partners’, your partnership won’t keep its legs very long. It’s important to look at the partnership as a joint venture – each side having a stake and a gain. Look out for your partner when they sometimes can’t look at for themselves and you’ll both be successful in the long run.

As I’ve been learning the past few weeks, I’m sure there are many other traps to be aware of. I’d love to hear your favorite.

In this continuing series focused around alliance building and partnering, I’d like to explore 5 topics, or should I say Partnering Myths, that I will discuss in this issue. These myths, as I term them, are nothing more than a set of expectations that are usually never realized.

Here are my 5 myths of partnering:

Myth No. 1 – Loyalty and success are dictated by the Agreement and Contract. My experience indicates that a written contract has very little to do with success. It’s not the numbers, terms or conditions that make alliances work, rather it’s much more dependent on people and mutual trust.

Myth No. 2 – My second myth, Exclusivity, frequently is associated with further increasing the mutual value of the partner agreement. Some believe that exclusivity enforces trust and loyalty and further creates a foundation for success. Perhaps that is true in some cases, but while exclusivity may benefit the smaller partner in the near term in a weak-strong partner relationship, it usually creates over-dependence on the larger partner in the long term and can result in non-competitive selling situations, reduced revenue and lower market capitalization for the smaller partner.

Myth No. 3 – Short Term Financial Results are indicative of a successful partnership. While short term results are always good, they can also cloud or mask problems with how the combined products and services are supported and what the longer term satisfaction requirements are for the customer.

Myth No. 4 – Money and Resources can solve partnership problems. Rarely does a set of joint marketing initiatives or investments solve an inherently poor business proposition. Rather, joint marketing spending needs to have clear objectives assigned in terms of what it will do to create demand and brand for the partnership.

Myth No. 5 – Industry Analysts buy into it. Over the years, I’ve heard a lot of analysts who come out and endorse a certain alliance or particular partnership. While analysts usually have excellent insight into the market landscape, they can often be blind-sided when it comes to understanding how productive alliances net out in actual working relationships between two sales organizations and R&D groups.

No doubt that there are others that I haven’t highlighted.

What’s your favorite myth when it comes to partnering?

In the 90’s, I had the opportunity to represent AT&T in one of the first Information Technology (IT) benchmarking studies facilitated by the Nolan, Norton Co. The two founders and principals of the company were David Norton and Dick Nolan. David Norton became famous for his development and use of the balanced scorecard while Dick Nolan was one of the leading professors of Information Management at Harvard. Their company Nolan, Norton Company eventually was bought out by KPMG – but I believe it may be independent again or at least reincarnated.

Our 9 month IT benchmarking study that was geared to highlight IT best practices (world-class best practices actually) was conducted with around 10 companies including Boeing, American Airlines, Canadian Imperial Bank of Canada, Sprint, Ford, etc. We used a number of techniques and as I recall it was an initial exposure to David Norton’s balanced scorecard which had just come out about that time. You can read more about it below and there is The Balanced Scorecard Institute for further information.

Applied to partnering, alliance managers can use these principles to measure:

• Partnership financial performance
• Customer satisfaction and increased customer interaction
• Internal learning through understanding of complementary products and services
• Process improvement through incorporation of best partner practices

Those 4 important balances apply to alliances and partnerships in the following way:

1. Process: Too much process and paperwork can overrun the alliance with unnecessary bureaucracy. Too little and there is not enough of a framework to work within. Having a defined go-to-market partner framework puts boundaries around where to focus.
2. Management: Too much executive interference may kill off the groundswell and viral effect while too little will surely doom its failure as evidence of no real commitment between the partners.
3. Customer Interaction: Too much customer interaction early on in the relationship will result in lack of focus and potentially dissatisfied clients especially if the partners paint the expectations too high. Too few early customers will stall the partnership from lack of concrete success stories and references. Early customer interaction can also help drive new areas of co-innovation that might go seemingly unnoticed.
4. Financial Results: Expectations that are set too high, too early will damage the credibility of the partnership, while too few results ends in a non-start eventually. It’s also important to build a compensation neutral programs with early incentives for both partners so that the line sales people that drive the success of the deals are appropriately compensated. That’s a subject of its own – but is quite important in the overall financial success of most partner driven relationship.

In summary, partnerships naturally imply balance, not necessarily in exactly equal amounts, but more in terms of relative commitment. Lastly, using a balanced scorecard approach can be an important lens into looking at your valuable partnerships and is another way to make sure that partnership success can be equivalently measured and improved.

For more information around the Balanced Scorecard
What is the balanced scorecard?
The balanced scorecard is a strategic planning and management system that is widely applicable to organizations regardless of size or type of business. The system, extensively used in business and industry, government, and nonprofit organizations worldwide, provides a method of aligning business activities to the vision and strategy of the organization, improving internal and external communications, and monitoring organization performance against strategic goals.

Some of my efforts have come in the form of attending events such as the Search Engine Strategies conference (March, NY), or Federated Media’s Conversational Media Summit (June, NY), or a Mashable meetup, or working with a business client, or business association colleagues such as MENG – Marketing Executives Networking Group and ASAP – the Association of Strategic Alliance Professionals.

There’s not too much in the way of resources out there that can be of a lot of value since some of these social media capabilities are relatively new or at least relatively unexplored when it comes to B2B alliances and partnerships and how they can be expanded and improved through the judicious use of social media activities. Where I’ve found resources, I will make them known, as there are a some.

So over the next several blogs I will be putting together a series of what’s going on in this area compiled from input and presentations at conferences by companies including Intel, as well as conversations from alliance, marketing (traditional and digital marketers), and sales professionals and executives in my network. I will attempt to capture Best Practices (where there are some early BP indications) and point you to a half dozen resources and places to look for information or expertise.

I may ask you and my larger network to take a survey on what you think and what you are experiencing.

These upcoming blogs will address the following questions when it comes to social media, web2.0 and alliances:

• What is Social Media and Web 2.0’s impact on the strategic alliance process and partnering?
• How can it be used effectively with channels?
• How does it integrate into the traditional partner marketing and business development process?
• Which social media and Web 2.0 strategies are more partner effective and in what situations?
• What are some case studies and who are the successes in using social media and Web 2.0 to improve partnering?
• Who or what failed and why?
• What is the cost and ROI of using social media and Web 2.0 for partnering and how does one measure it?
• Is there an opportunity (lost) cost of doing nothing?
• How do business partners maintain control and are there specific partner rules of social media engagement?
• Who or where can you turn to for help?

As this progresses, I will put the information into a whitepaper for easier reading. So if you would like, send me an email or sign up for my updates on these findings and a complete whitepaper and I will be happy to forward it to you.

Lastly, and just as importantly, if you are interested in discussing, questioning or being a part of the input, let me know.  Or just comment below if you have thoughts.

Since I tend to frequently use what I suggest, I keep getting asked lately what technologies I’m suggesting to help some of my clients. This is not a simple question since it typically depends on the client. What’s good for one situation is not always good for the next. In a sense, I could answer this from different perspectives and to make this personal I’ll use my background as a backdrop. You could do the same since, particularly if you have a broad range of experience or have a specific knowledge base. 

From one perspective, as a former IT Architect at AT&T Bell Laboratories, I typically pushed the edge of applying and incorporating the latest technologies. Since there were legions of programmers around me, if the technology performed poorly, I or someone around me could probably fix it. This is the least likely scenario today in business and although the first to be mentioned here, is my last choice – unless - this new technology could provide you with a significant edge against your competition. This frequently occurred with some of the big capital markets companies like Citi or Goldman Sachs where a microsecond head’s start in trading can be everything (first mover always wins in that market).
 
From another perspective, as an end user of technology and former Risk Manager in the financial and insurance world, I can say I gravitated towards first fully understanding the software programs that I had access to and what their strengths and deficiencies were. I then tended to experiment with commercial off-the-shelf programs that I could manage myself. So I would sometimes try a new software program using a subset of the data and information that I had at hand. Since I knew the data intimately, I frequently tried running new software alternatives against that data to understand whether the new results were better, or more importantly I tried to discover whether I could gain some fresh insights into this old data. If the new program didn’t take me a lot of learing time and was easy to install, I knew I was on to something. As an example, I used this approach successfully to deliver just-in-time risk reports to our large customers using a software tool that no one was using at the time. It took me from a manager to an Asst VP early in my career.

Lastly, I think there is the case of smaller companies (under 200 employees) who simply can’t get too far down the track with new programs. With this set of users, and I have some, focusing on simplicity and complementary programs is the right approach. These tend to be Microsoft Office only shops – maybe with some specialty programs like CAD (Computer Aided Design) if they are an engineering design firm for example. In fact, the operative technique here is to use programs that easily fit together and have been integrated together by many companies.

In short, keep these in mind before adding new technologies:

• What are your business needs – first and foremost?
• What technology resources, capabilities and people do you have and will this drain them from doing other worthwhile projects?
• Does it complement and add value to what I’m doing? What are some complementary and low-risk technologies that I could use?
• Is there a short term ( < 6mos) bang for the buck? Long term ROI doesn’t make it with many managers today.
• Will it require a lot of integration with other programs?
• Can I get a business user to trial it quickly?
• How will it get supported (internally/externally)?

So what are some of the technology picks that I like for business? I have a number of them depending on your size and on whether you’re a wealth management company, a health care company developing its web presence, a small or medium size business grappling with the basics, or a large or small business trying to understand its customer base. I will outline some of these good ones in another blog – or feel to connect with me. Feel free to offer your thoughts, favorites or other comments as well. I’d love to hear them!