Too often, companies try to fix a struggling alliance program by either making superficial changes or starting from scratch without considering what already exists. But alliances are not just contracts or organizational charts—they are ecosystems of relationships, shared objectives, and historical context. They live out in the “real world.”

Many companies approach technology alliances with the best of intentions—but the wrong order of operations. They form a team, start chasing partnerships, and only later try to align those efforts with corporate objectives. The result? A disjointed, inefficient alliances function that struggles to deliver real impact.

There’s a question that sometimes comes up in my consulting engagements: “Would you ever consider coming on board full-time?” My answer is simple and unwavering: No. Never. Not going to happen.

Why? Because I’m not looking for a job—I’m looking for interesting projects where I can apply my expertise, drive real impact, and then move on to the next challenge.

When companies bring in a consultant, they often expect a familiar process: assessment, strategy recommendations, a polished presentation, and then...an exit (“See ya!!!”). This is the pattern that occurs over and over again regardless of the domain of expertise, including mine: Technology Alliances.

While this approach does add value, it often leaves the client with mere theoretical guidance, but no real-world execution.

What do you do when you can’t afford to wait for internal development and don’t want to bet the farm on a high-risk acquisition? What if time-to-market proves to be a challenge for the organic dev and/or acquisition?

You establish a Technology Alliance.

Technology alliances are often hailed as catalysts for growth and innovation. As they should be! Yet, many (actually, make that most) companies clumsily stumble in their execution, leading to missed opportunities and strained partnerships. Before I step foot into any given organization, I’ve got a very good chance of correctly guessing that they’re committing one or more common mistakes.

”Nobody buys a farm because they have a tractor. It’s the other way around."

What do I mean? Your $250,000 solution might be amazing. But if the customer’s project is a $10 million enterprise solution of some sorts, you’re not the farm—you’re the tractor. And the customer’s focus is on the farm (i.e., the big-picture outcomes they need to achieve).

Tech company leaders often craft their Alliances Plans in ink (actually, in my experience, they quite often etch them in stone as if they will last a decade or longer). I’m strongly recommending that they should actually craft them using pencil (with a good eraser!). And they should often hire a Temporary Alliances leader to wield that pencil.

Business still happens IRL with humans. And Alliances are inherently about bringing humans to the table to agree on something (and then DO something). So, when you’re crafting a new partnership, your ability to “make friends and influence people” is typically the difference between mediocrity and consequential success.

The reality is this: An alliance might make perfect sense on paper. It could align with market needs, support the company’s overarching goals, and even complement the product strategy. But if the Product team—right, wrong, or otherwise—is not on board, trouble will follow. Misalignment or resistance from the team responsible for the company’s core offering can stall execution, dilute focus, and ultimately doom the alliance to failure.

There’s an axiom in the fitness world: People tend to overestimate how quickly they’ll see results in the short term but dramatically underestimate the transformative impact over the long term.

This principle doesn’t just apply to exercise—it perfectly parallels the journey of building and sustaining successful technology alliances.

Where should the alliances team sit within the organization? Is it a function of Sales, where the focus is revenue and go-to-market execution? Or should it sit in Product, driving innovation and integration efforts? Perhaps it belongs in Marketing, amplifying the company’s brand through ecosystem partnerships.

As is often the case in business strategy, the answer is nuanced: It depends—and it doesn’t.

It’s not uncommon to hear leaders say, “That alliance failed.” But if there was no Review process in place, the right question to ask is, “How do you know? Did you run the playbook and then review it to programmatically assess success?” If the answer is “No,” then the reality is that the alliance wasn’t given a full chance to succeed in the first place. Without a Review, there’s no clear understanding of what went wrong—or whether the approach simply needed a strategic adjustment. In other words, if you didn’t Review, you didn’t truly try.

If your organization is serious about forming robust technology alliances and delivering a superior customer experience, then TSANet membership is not just an option—it’s a necessity. From accelerating issue resolution and improving operational efficiency to fostering stronger partner relationships and standing out in the market, the benefits of TSANet membership are clear.

One of the best questions we can ask ourselves is, "If not for the fact that this is how we've always done it, knowing what we know now, is this how we'd do it?" This question challenges the status quo and typically leads to change. The answer to such a query is almost always “Well, no, as a matter of fact; if I was starting over, I’d do it differently.”

A “South Star” employee is characterized not by personal ambition or self-promotion but by a deep commitment to mentorship, coaching, and fostering collaboration within the organization. Typically, they’ve already had long and successful careers, which puts them in a position to leverage their years of experience and expertise not for personal gain but to support and empower the next generation of talent. The “South Star” employee, is in fact, driven by this “call to service.”

In the world of technology alliances, success hinges on strategic foresight, meticulous planning, and precise execution. When organizations rush to hire full-time employees (FTEs) before crafting a clear strategy, they raise the likelihood of missteps that can lead to inefficiencies, missed opportunities, and costly mistakes.

We’ve previously outlined the impact of the IPE&R process for Alliance programs and, further, asserted that the R (Review) portion is the most overlooked even though it is, arguably, the most important step. Here’s the thing: You can review progress if you’re not measuring. And, stating the obvious, you can’t measure if you don’t have metrics in place. This is where successful Alliance Professionals differentiate themselves from the pack.

We’ve explored the transformative capabilities of the IPE&R process in driving success in technology alliances. However, not all alliance programs adhere to such structured methodologies. In fact, most don’t and that leads to what can be aptly described as "Barney Alliances."

Let’s delve into the pitfalls of Barney Alliances and why a structured approach like IPE&R is essential for fostering purposeful and impactful partnerships.

Let’s be real: The complex terrain of the tech business world often leads to underperforming Tech Alliances. Why? Well, like anything worthwhile, they require work! And too often orgs simply don’t do the work OR they go about it in a convoluted way. Their development and execution requires a structured approach that drives clarity, commitment, and accountability. Enter the “IPE&R Process.”