Common sense is not common practice in alliances


Published on

A compilation of the research that supports the contention that a best practice approach to developing alliance programmes produces better results.

Published in: Business, Health & Medicine
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Common sense is not common practice in alliances

  1. 1. Common Sense is notCommon PracticeHow Alliance Best PracticeProgrammes are DeliveringCompetitive Advantage
  2. 2. ContentsThe following topics are covered in this briefing: 1 Why and how should you partner? 2 Why is a best practice approach the best option? 3 What do we mean by „Alliance Best Practice‟? 4 Why isn‟t everyone following a best practice approach? 5 What evidence is there that best practices = best results? 6 How should you develop an alliance best practice approach? 7 Appendices – Further supporting evidence and documentationPage  2
  3. 3. Why and how should we partner?A best practice approach to alliance development produces better results Best Practices = Best Results  Organisations need to grow to survive. Typically they have done so by using the „build, buy, ally‟ model of business development.  The recession has made the first two of these growth options difficult hence attention is now turning to the third option – ally.  Organisations are now actively looking for the best way to ally with a range of: suppliers, competitors, customers and others.  Research from a multiple series of sources suggests that the best way to ally is by using a best practice approach.  This short paper describes: the rationale, the supporting justification, and the most cost efficient method of implementing such alliance best practice programmes.Page  3
  4. 4. Why is a best practice approach the bestoption?Best practice = higher return at lower cost in less time  Following a „best practice‟ approach has been recognised as a Approved successful business strategy for many years. (See for example the Theory Total Quality movement e.g. Baldridge and the European Foundation for Quality Management).  Such programmes have unmistakable advantages over alternative Advantages proprietary solutions. Typically these are: greater speed, lower cost, better quality, predictability of outcomes and less risk.  By relying on proven success strategies that have been developed Proven Success previously you will enjoy all the advantages above in developing your Strategies alliance programmes.  Results from best practice partnering programmes show a higher return Better in less time at a lower cost (see later research justifications). ResultsPage  4
  5. 5. What do we mean by ‘Alliance BestPractice’?Best Practice = Doing the right things in the right order:  There is a great deal of  In this briefing paper we  ABP has researched over confusion regarding the describe „best practice‟ as 27,000 alliance term „best practice‟ or systematised common relationships and „best practices‟ sense. An currently maintains a particularly when used to approach, behaviour, proc database of over 180,000 describe strategic ess or activity that shows entries. It is from alliances. predictably better results observations of this in a quicker and more database that we draw efficient manner than the our best practice alternatives. conclusions.Page  5
  6. 6. Why isn’t everyone using it?Common sense is not always common practice  Knowing that you should do something and having the courage to do it is not the same thing. (See for example Strategy and the Fat Smoker by David H Maister).  Many organisations labour under the misapprehension that designing and developing proprietary approaches is the only way to secure a competitive advantage.  In fact simply knowing that best practices exist is no guarantee to success. The skill is in knowing which best practices can be implemented at which time by the organisation: 1) Unconscious Incompetence, 2) Conscious Incompetence 3) Conscious Competence 4) Unconscious CompetencePage  6
  7. 7. What evidence is there that best practice =best results?All of the following reports concluded that best practices = best results Practioners Consultants Academics  Cisco benchmarking  Anderson Consulting  University of the United research 1999 – 2007 „Best Practices in Nations – Bi Annual State  Procter and Gamble Strategic Alliances‟ 1989 of Alliances Review 2002 internal R&D programme  Boston Consulting Group 2004 2006 2008 2010. 2002 – 2006 Pharma Benchmarking  Harvard University  AstraZeneca – Internal report 2010. (Rosabeth Moss Kanter) project 2005 – 2010  IBM Healthcare industry Review of 37 global annual review 2001 - alliance programmes  Eli Lilly alliance 2002 – 2006 programme re-evaluation 2011. 2001 – 2002  Booz Allen and Hamilton  University of Southern review of 3,500 global California annual review  GSK Healthcare – of 12,000 alliances in strategic review 2004 - partnering organisations 2002 – 2006. Silicon Valley. 2008  McKinsey annual alliance  University of EindhovenThis list is a small partial sample forexample purposes only. For a fuller list review 1995 – 2005. Innovation centre annualof sources please see the Appendices review.Section.Page  7
  8. 8. How should you develop an alliance bestpractice programme?Executing a best practice programme would be a five step process: Step 1 - Baseline Step 3 – Implementation Step 5 – Review • Deliverables include best practice • Deliverables include additional Alliance • Tracking the education/guidance, program launches, performance metrics, an programme charter, program design, and a improved processes for inter-business effectiveness to pre customized alliance framework decision-making, and a recommendation established success • Provides goal alignment, implementable for a relationship management system criteria. vision, and a more robust Alliance • Makes Alliances an integral part of your • Taking remedial action valuation methodology. organisations thinking. as necessary Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 2 – Strategy and Design Step 4 – Scale Capability • Deliverables include finalized • Deliverables include skills Vision, portfolio plan, detailed matrix, Tools, legal frameworks, internal roadmap, partner matrix, and tactical certification program, web site improvement opportunities • Spreads Alliance capabilities throughout • Provides a pragmatic realization path with company; disseminates best practices; clear benefits defined embeds training for certification and Alliance thinking in business systemsPage  8
  9. 9. APPENDICESPage  9
  10. 10. Support for the Alliance Best PracticeApproachThere is considerable evidence supporting a best practice approach: Research Community Practitioners  There are currently 523  There are currently 2,400  The Alliance Best Practice documents in the ABP active members of the approach has been taught Framework which support Alliance Best Practice to over 1,000 active the concept of best community. alliance executives during practices in alliances.  The community is split the last 10 years.  The oldest entry comes into both a general group  Companies who have from 1989 the newest is and a thought leaders adopted the approach from June 2011. group. (amonst others) include:  The research comprises:  There are over 100 global  IBM, Microsoft, AstraZene books, white Chief Alliance Officers ca, BASF, Bristol Myers papers, articles, research and renowned alliance Squibb, Pfizer, SAP, Rolls assignments, presentatio authors in the thought Royce, Starbucks, Oracle, ns and investigations. leadership group. and Bayer Schering Pharma.Page  10
  11. 11. What is Alliance Best Practice (ABP)?ABP is a research consultancy specialising in B2B strategic alliances Alliance Best Practice  Alliance best practices are the identified practices that research has shown lead to optimal alliance results  ABP is a group of over 20 internatioanal alliance experts able to cover the world and work in multiple languages  ABP is dedicated to: discovering, developing and disseminating best practices for its clients  It does this through the ABP Database (ABPDBTM)Page  11
  12. 12. Alliance Best Practices ExistABP has investigated over 27,000 alliances to identify best practices Research Validation Implications  Recognised in General  Common Success  ABP has since used the Management theory - Factors (CSFs) - „Those resulting framework with goes hand in hand with practices, principles, proc over 600 in depth quality and edures, behaviours or benchmarking benchmarking. factors which appear in examinations of strategic  ABP has examined successful strategic alliances in action. 27,000 international alliances in a statistically  The ABP database collaborative relationships relevant manner‟. currently holds over from both domestic and  ABP then validated the 180,000 observations of international sources. concepts with over 500 these CSFs in practice.  We found factors which practicing alliance  The results show that appeared consistently in managers from ASAP – doing the right things successful strategic The Association of (best practices) produced alliances – common Strategic Alliance the right results (more success factors (CSFs). Professionals. value / revenue).Page  12
  13. 13. Partner ‘Intimacy’ Spectrum Both partners need to define the topology of the progression and the ‘value of the journey’ Low High Intimacy Intimacy Low High Value Value 0 = None 25 = Low 50 = Median 75 = High 100 = Perfection  Commodity Price  Some customization  Customized/  Shared risks & individualized investment  Interchangeable  Flexibility/levels of Product service  Process & data  Deeply integrated  Highly specified  Special knowledge integration  Mutually deliverables  Solutions oriented interdependent  Buy from, sell to and  Buy from and sell sell with (GTM  Shared rewards  Breakthrough to together) market value  Greater cost value leverage
  14. 14. Common Success Factors : Best PracticesThere are currently 52 CSFs in 5 categories Commercial Technical Strategic Cultural Operational Co1 Business Value T11 Valuation of assets S20 Shared objectives Cu31 Business to O39 Alliance process Proposition (BVP) business trust T12 Partner company S21 Relationship O40 Speed of progress Co2 Due Diligence market position Scope Cu32 Collaborative O41 Revenue flow corporate mindset Co3 Optimum Legal / T13 Host company S22 Tactical and O42 Business plan Business Structure market position strategic risk Cu33 Collaboration skills O43 Communication Co4 Alliance Audit T14 Market fit of S23 Risk sharing proposed solution Cu34 Dedicated O44 Health check Co5 Key metrics S24 Exit strategies alliance manager O45 Alliance charter T15 Product fit with Co6 Alliance reward S25 Senior executive partners offerings Cu35 Alliance centre of O46 Change mgt. system support excellence T16 Identified mutual O47 Operational Co7 Commercial cost S26 B2B Strategic needs in the Cu36 Decision making metrics alignment Co8 Commercial relationship process benefit S27 Fit with strategic O48 Operational T17 Process for team Cu37 Other cultural alignment business path Co9 Process for problem solving issues negotiation S28 Other relationships O49 Exponential T18 Shared Control Cu38 B2B Cultural breakthroughs with same partner Co10 Expected Cost Alignment T19 Partner O50 Internal alignment value ratio S29 Common strategic accountability ground rules O51 Project plan S30 Common vision O52 Issue escalationPage  14
  15. 15. Alliance Capability Model (ACMTM)The goal is to establish partnering as an organisational competence Alliance Capability Alliance Performance People Commercial Governance Technical Key Performance Leadership Resources Processes Strategic Results Structure Cultural Technology Operational Internal Benchmarking on an Ongoing Basis : Continuous Improvement Cycle Alliance Maturity Model (AMMTM) Alliance Best Practice Index External Benchmarking Alliance Best Practice Database (ABPDTM) KEY MESSAGES:  Investment in training alone will not deliver alliance competence (AC)  Alliance managers need ongoing support to produce best results  Building capability is essential to delivering results  AC = Competitive business advantage
  16. 16. Partnering CompetenceThe ability to apply the CSFs in an efficient and effective manner Alliance Knowledge People / Skills / Behaviours Organisational Structure  The combination of CSFs  Four stages of knowledge  Built around: into suitable individual growth:  Strategic proceses  Unconcious  Managerial  The combination of incompetence processes into partnering  Operational  Conscious practices incompetence  In a matrix with:  Built around alliance  Conscious  Alliance portfolio management: competence  Sales  Add  Unconscious  Marketing  Adjust competence  Technology  Optimise  Local Involvement  RetirePage  16
  17. 17. Alliance MaturityThere are three observable stages in organisational alliance maturity Stage 1 - Opportunistic Stage 2 - Systematic Stage 3 - Endemic  Alliances are  Separate corporate efforts  Planned investment in opportunistic in different areas of partnering capability  Each alliance is a „stand business  Wide scale use of full alone‟ venture  Strategic partners range of alliance:  Alliances are not part of developed training, tools and the company‟s “Standard  Effort begun to adopt priocesses Operating Procedure” “best practices” in alliance  Close integration of:  Typically alliances are management sales, marketing, technolo used to secure tactical  „Islands‟ of ownership of gy, innovation etc „deals‟ or exploit individual alliances formed market opportunitiesPage  17
  18. 18. The Alliance Maturity Model AMMTM Company 2807060 Company 15040 Stage I Stage II Stage III30 • Alliances are opportunistic • Each alliance is a „stand alone‟ • Separate corporate efforts in different areas of business • Planned investment in partnering20 venture • Strategic partners developed capability • Alliances are not part of the • Effort begun to adopt “best practices” in alliance • Wide scale use of full range of company‟s “Standard Operating management alliance capability building Procedure” • Close integration of sales,10 marketing, innovation etc 0 IC 6 7 5 9 4 2 8 1 3 C 21 10 34 29 28 32 23 24 27 26 12 33 15 13 19 20 25 14 22 18 16 30 17 31 11 C C C C C C C C C W BC C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C
  19. 19. Alliance Best Practice FrameworkThe ABPDBTM with 180,000+ entries lies at the heart of the Framework„Tools‟ refer to any There are 52 Criticaldocuments that help users Success Factors (CSFs)apply the Framework identified fromknowledge. examining over 27,000 Bench international strategic MOUP alliances. Marks ABPDTMThe Alliance Maturity ModelTM establishes: current Relationship Diagnostics Optimisationsituation, (benchmark)current and future By combining thechallenges, the nature of principles established inthe journey‟ and success the CSFs a range ofstrategies for cost effective Best Practices (BPs)progress. have been developedPage  19
  20. 20. Relationships BenchmarkedABP has worked with over 300 of the worlds best partnering organisations Organisations in the ABPDBTM Accenture (Asia Pac), Accenture (EMEA), Accenture (USA), Aenis, Air France, AirPlus, Alcatel (UK), Alcatel Lucent, Amec, AMP Capital, ANA Airlines, Apple 15 25 Computer, Ariba, Arriva, Associated Business Leaders LLC, AstraZeneca, AT+T, Atos Origin, Avaya, Avis, AXA, Bank of America, BASF, Basilica Consulting, Battelle, Bax 25 Global, Bayer Schering Pharma, BBC Corporation, BCX, BDO Unicon, Bearing Point, Bell Canada, BMI Airlines, BNP Paribas, Boeringer Ingelheim, Borland, BP Oil and Gas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, the British Library, BT, BT Global Services, BT Wholesale, Buckland Austin, Business Objects, Capgemini, Cardinal Health, Carlson Wagonlit, Caterpillar, CGI, Chordiant, Ciber- 27 72 Novesoft, Cisco, Cognos, Computacenter, Continental Airlines, CSC, Csiper, Delaware, Dell, Deloitte, Delta Airlines, Deutsche Bank, Disney Corporation, Dupont Industries, EBRC, Eli Lilly, EMC, Epiphany, Ericsson, Everis, Exact Software, Excel Logistics, Experian, Exponent, Fontline, Fontworkx, Fujitsu Communications, Fujitsu Consulting, Fujitsu Services, Fujitsu Siemens, GE Capital Finance, Genesys, Genset, GlaxoSmithKline, GSK (Healthcare), GSK (Pharma), Hitachi 48 Consulting, HP (UK), HP (USA), i2 Technologies, IBM (Asia Pac), IBM (India), IBM (UK), IBM (USA), IBM Global Services (NE IOT), IBM Global Services (USA), IBS, IDS Sheer, Imbercal, Imperial Tobacco, Infor, Intel, Intentia, ITS, Japan Corporate Bank, Kalamazoo, Kana, Keane, KLM Airlines, KLM Cargo, KPMG, Kuehne & Nagle, Lawson, Lenovo, Logica, LTSB, Lufthansa, Marks and Spencer, McAfee, Merck, Micro Focus, Microsoft (CS), Microsoft (EPG), Mitie, Motorola, MSG, NEC Computers, nFocus, Nokia, Nordea, Nortel, Northwest Airlines, Norwich Union Life, O2 Telefonica, Omax Auto, Omega Pre Formation Formation Signs, Oracle, Peregrine, Pfizer, PLM, RBS, RCC, Reckitt Benckiser, Rider Levitt Bucknall, Rifcon, Roiter Zucker, Rolls Royce, SAP (EMEA), SAP (Global), SAP (UK), SAS Institute, Satyam, Scottish Widows, Serco, Siebel, Siemens AG, Siemens Growth Maturity Business Services, Siemens Enterprise Networks, Siemens Comms, Siemens GmbH, Singapore Airlines, Skyteam, Sprint, SSA, Staffware, Star Extension Decline / Renewal Alliance, Starbucks, StorageTek, T Mobile, Tata Communications, Tata Consulting Services (TCS), TDG Logistics, Telmex (mexico), Telus (Canada), TNT Express, Tubelines, UBS, uLogistics, Unipart Logistics, Unisys, United Airlines, Verizon, Vodafone, Wipro, Withy King, Xerox, Xerox Services, Zurich Financial ServicesPage  20
  21. 21. Benchmarks by sectorHigh Tech and Pharma companies comprise the majority of entries: ABPDTM By Sector 17  The largest sector is High Tech 15 28  All business sectors are now 21 beginning to use alliances  Most common use is: 19 112  Developing New Business (Growth)  Developing New Products and Services (Innovation) Airlines / Finance IT  Developing Quality or Cost Pharma Manufacturing Control (Recession) Services / Media OtherPage  21
  22. 22. External research improves knowledgeTo improve organisations must be aware of what „best practice‟ looks like: Unconscious  Organisations don‟t know what they don‟t know! Incompetence  No understanding of Best Practices or current performance  Value loss high Conscious  Developing understanding that Best Practices exist, but no systems to take advantage of them. Difficulties in generating the business case. Incompetence  Can use the Framework to massively reduce cost of alliances Conscious  Knowledge of Best Practices but need training and experience to apply Competence them successfully.cost effectively generate breakthrough levels of incremental revenue.  Collaboration is a core competence now organisations can use Unconscious partnering as a key business strategy. Competence  Target = Partner of Choice (POC) in chosen sectors.Page  22
  23. 23. Better knowledge = competitive advantageThe impact of lack of „best practice‟ knowledge: Unconscious  Organisations don‟t know what they don‟t know! Incompetence  No understanding of BP or current performance  Value loss high Conscious  Developing understanding that BP exist, but no systems to take advantage of them. Difficulties in generating The business case. Incompetence  Can use the Framework to massively reduce cost of alliances Conscious  Knowledge of BP but need training and experience to apply them Competence successfully.cost effectively generate breakthrough levels of incremental revenue.  Collaboration is a core competence now organisations can use Unconscious partnering as a key business strategy. Competence  Target = Partner of Choice (POC) in chosen sectors.Page  23
  24. 24. Commercial Implications of Best Practice IIBest Practice (BP) consistently out performs Non Best Practice (NBP) Best Practice (BP) Non Best Practice (NBP)70 65 61 59 Same Company60 Same VP Different Approach 49 4850 39 Widening Delta as40 34 times get tough 2930 23 25 21 19 1920 1510 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010Page  24
  25. 25. Setting alliance manager standardsA professional well educated alliance executive is the „point of the sword‟  Alliance manager  ABP chaired the  In addition ABP has standards are now certification standards worked with beginning to be committee for ASAP (the IBM, Starbucks, Eli introduced Association of Strategic Lilly, and Rolls Royce to  Organisations are paying Alliance Professionals) set suitable alliance more attention to alliance and researched and built manager standards to management training the competency support training needs framework on which the analysis and appraisal certification is based. review systems.Page  25
  26. 26. Individual relationship benchmark example Co1 O51 O52 Co2 Co3 Generally consistent scoring O50 100 Co4 O49 90 Co5 O48 Co6 Client scored lower (usually) O47 80 Co7 than the Partner O46 70 Co8 O45 60 Co9 Differences were perceived in O44 50 Co10 the following areas; O43 40 T11 30 - Co1 Defined business value O42 20 T12 proposition O41 10 T13 - T2 - Partner company market O40 0 T14 position O39 T15 - T3 - Host company market position Cu38 T16 - S7 – B2B Strategic Alignment Cu37 T17 - Cu8 – B2b Cultural Alignment Cu36 T18 - O2 – Speed of progress so far Cu35 T19 Cu34 S20 - O12 – Internal Alignment Cu33 S21 Cu32 S22 Cu31 S23 S30 S24 S29 S28 S26 S25 S27
  27. 27. ABP Relationship Optimisation ProcessHaving a consistent way to optimise relationships improves results:Identifier Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Stage 5Description Goal Setting and Scoping Diagnostic Action Planning Resource Mapping 90 Day ReviewObjective To identify the currently To generate an objective view Objective – To generate a To map all identified To track the progress of projected commercial value of of the relationship which shows jointly agreed (with the partner) actions to a RACI[1] the joint action plan to the relationship for the next 12 52 strengths and weaknesses action plan to optimise the framework to identify key target/s and take remedial months. identified as a score from 0-100 relationship. stakeholders roles and action as required. responsibilities.Activities • Contact all key stakeholders • Agree on key stakeholders to • Construct agreed agenda • Conduct RACI chart • Conduct healthcheck and draw up strawman provide data from draft report mapping for all identified assessment prior to value projection • Gather data and send results • Analyse areas of improvement actions review meeting • Resolve conflicts and to ABP misalignment (i.e. CSFs • Communicate and agree • Construct agenda and discrepancies with • ABP benchmarks the data which show different scores role of all stakeholders pre meeting progress stakeholders and produces draft alliance from one partner to the other) on the RACI chart report • Document draft final value efficiency report (AER) • Agree common scores for all • Revise the RACI chart as • Conduct meeting projection • Discuss AER with partner 52 areas (with the partner) necessary focusing on • Obtain sign off of value (and / or ABP) and decide • Identify areas for action • Agree a single underperforming areas projection from senior whether to progress to stage • Identify short term and long stakeholder from both /all • Agree revised action plan executive sponsor 3 term actions organisations in each with remedial actions • Identify help required with category • Publish revised action long term actions • Sign off RACI chart with plan • Produce agreed action plan host and partner executivesInputs • Relationship business plans • Online diagnostic • Draft AER • Agreed Action Plan • Jointly greed action plan • Alliance strategy document • Briefing Pack from ABP • Suggested workshop agenda • RACI resource mapping • Jointly agreed • Briefing Pack from ABP • ABP coaching as required • Agreed workshop attendee tool stakeholder map list • MOUP • AgendaOutputs • Agreed Scope • Draft alliance efficiency report • Jointly agreed action plan • Stakeholder map of • Revised Action Plan • Agreed initial commercial (AER) from ABP agreed actions valuation • Benchmarking report • Decision to proceed
  28. 28. The ROI of the Ally ModelThe „Ally‟ model outperforms the „Build‟ or „Buy‟ models: The commercial return of the „ally‟ model is typically five times higher than the other two models*. Organisations are increasingly turning to the third generation business growth model of „ally‟ because it represents a more flexible and cost effective growth model. In addition it is easier to achieve in a recession. *Source Booz Allen and Hamilton Research 1996 - 2002
  29. 29. The two forces driving systematisationSystematisation is being driven by internal and external; factors  Regular interaction drives value  Need to reuse knowledge gained Internal  Individual / corporate responsibility  Systematisation allows consistent comparison  Sarbanes Oxley, Basel II & III, Enron, credit crunch, etc.  External audits of processes External  CFOs identifying value in the balance sheet  It costs less to be working to a system  CEOs tired of the hype „show me the money‟Page  29
  30. 30. Commercial return of systematisationBest practice practitioners on average earn more from their alliances: Efficiency - (e.g. internal knowledge transfer, having a defined process, having a clear business value proposition, constructing good alignment with partners, etc.). Effectiveness - (e.g. Assessing potential partners more quickly, refusing to be drawn into the opportunistic deal chasing merry go round but rather setting and keeping to a defined strategy, etc.) - *Source Alliance Best Practice database 2001 - 2011
  31. 31. Alliance mythsSome commonly held views are negated by the evidence in the database: Alliance Best Practice  Alliances are about people pure and simple  There can be no „one‟ single best practice all alliances are unique  Collaboration is an unnatural act  Alliances are not „sexy‟ business models  If the money is good enough then people will pretend to get along  No organisation is going to willingly commit to a limited number of partners  There are too many variables in any collaborative relationship to allow meaningful analysisPage  31
  32. 32. Alliance ChallengesSignificant alliance challenges remain Internal Challenges External Challenges  Building bricks with no straw  Embedding collaborative thinking in  Confusing terminology an organisation  Identifying Key Stakeholders  Collaborative negotiation  Lack of control  Developing a business case for an alliance department / function  Appointing the wrong person to the alliance role  Distributed governance  Technical excellence is not  Identifying alliance value partnering excellence  Positioning alliances in  Short term thinking organisational structures  Managing multiple alliances  Overcoming organisational resistance / inertiaPage  32
  33. 33. The developing future for alliancesCollaborative business to business relationships are here to stay Internal Challenges External Challenges  More revenue coming from indirect  Development of PRM systems means  Greater focus on systematisation  More audit pressures on  Training emerging as a capability organisations to have auditable enhancing tool of choice alliance processes  More structure in alliance job  Alliance manager certification and descriptions, behaviours and qualification assessment centres  Greater and more balanced  Alliance virtual teams and „ad hoc‟ measurement of alliances knowledge exchange taking place  Greater focus on the ROI of alliances  New models and business cases  Accelerating Hi Tech alliances with being built (e.g. cost of sales v cost Pharma companies of alliances)Page  33
  34. 34. Further DetailsFor further details please contact;Mike NevinManaging PartnerAlliance Best Practice LtdWeb: www.alliancebestpractice.comOffice: +44 (0)1675 442490Mobile: +44 (0)7766 752350E Mail: