Where Should a Technology Alliances Team Sit? It Depends—and It Doesn’t
In the intricate world of technology alliances, one recurring question sparks lively debates in boardrooms and executive strategy sessions: 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.
The Case for "It Depends"
The placement of a technology alliances team depends heavily on the nature of the organization and its strategic objectives. Here’s a breakdown of common scenarios:
Sales-Led Alliances
When It Makes Sense: If the primary goal of your alliances is to drive revenue growth, close deals, or open new markets, situating the alliances team within Sales often makes sense. This structure ensures the team is closely aligned with revenue-generating activities and has the necessary proximity to account executives, sales leaders, and customer conversations.
Key Consideration: Sales-focused alliances teams must balance short-term revenue targets with the long-term strategic value of partnerships. There are also Finance-driven Sales-Productivity considerations to keep in mind.
Product-Led Alliances
When It Makes Sense: If the focus of your alliances is on product innovation, technical integrations, or co-development of solutions, the team may fit better within the Product organization. Here, the alliances team can directly influence…or be influenced by…the product roadmap, ensuring tight alignment with engineering and development efforts.
Key Consideration: Product-driven alliances teams need strong collaboration with go-to-market functions to translate innovations into revenue and customer value. Alliances considerations should be part of Product planning.
Marketing-Led Alliances
When It Makes Sense: For companies looking to expand brand recognition, establish thought leadership, or jointly execute demand-generation campaigns, placing the alliances team under Marketing may be ideal. This allows partnerships to focus on amplifying the company’s market presence and building awareness through co-marketing initiatives.
Key Consideration: Marketing-led alliances teams must ensure that their work contributes to tangible business outcomes beyond awareness, such as pipeline creation or lead acceleration.
Why It Doesn’t Matter (If You Have the Right Process)
Here’s where it gets interesting. While the organizational placement of a technology alliances team is important, it’s not the most critical factor for success. The reality is that any placement can work—if the alliances program is guided by a cross-functional robust process.
Enter Cascadia Leadership Advisors’ IPE&R framework—an approach we’ve discussed here before. It’s one that ensures clarity, alignment, and execution regardless of where the team resides.
Initiative (I): Ideas for alliances are vetted with internal stakeholders, ensuring they align with overall business objectives and strategy.
Proposal (P): Approved ideas are developed into formal proposals, outlining the scope, objectives, and metrics for success. Leadership evaluates these proposals to ensure organizational alignment.
Execution (E): Once approved, alliances move into execution mode, where cross-functional collaboration drives value realization.
Review (R): Ongoing review cycles measure progress, identify areas for improvement, and determine if adjustments—or even termination—are needed.
When an organization follows IPE&R, the location of the alliances team becomes secondary to the discipline of the process. Whether the team reports to Sales, Product, Marketing, or elsewhere, the framework ensures that the right questions are asked, the right priorities are set, and the right metrics are measured.
The Real Question: What’s the Organization’s Priority?
Rather than getting bogged down in debates over reporting structures, leaders should ask:
What outcomes do we expect from our alliances program?
Which part of the organization is best equipped to support those outcomes?
How can we ensure the team operates cross-functionally, regardless of its placement?
Once these questions are answered, the IPE&R process can take over, ensuring alignment, execution, and accountability across teams.
Conclusion: Process Over Placement
In the end, the placement of a technology alliances team should reflect the unique needs and goals of the organization. But the real secret to success isn’t where the team sits—it’s how the team operates. A disciplined process like IPE&R enables technology alliances to thrive in any organizational structure, driving meaningful outcomes and delivering value to the business.
So, should your alliances team sit in Sales, Product, or Marketing? It depends. But if you’re running IPE&R, it doesn’t matter nearly as much as you might think.
