DAY 6
BD Structural
Alignment Workshop
Workshop flow
1. Background of the Project
2. Output of the BD Summit
3. Discussion and Next Steps
4. Sales Structure Questions
Bottleneck we are facing Objectives of the summit
Role similarity for different
roles in Org. BD or other
related functions
AI BD Team is too occupied in
delivery workloads and can
not focus on big partnership
development.
To clarify the roles between
different roles(GC/AI/MC/LC)
in terms of GEP management for
better communication and
efficiency.
To create the new GEP customer
flow and delivery structure to
ensure leadership development of
GEP Trainees.
BD Summit
Output
1. If we clarify the roles and responsibilities
= save time, resources
2. LC levels unique role is delivery of internships, use AI for
BIG Global Partnerships
3. The learning of different levels should be clarified and
aligned
4. Collaboration for Existing and new Global Partners
5. Create a proposed structure for the network
New customer flow for
Global Exchange Partners
Pilot Entities- Belgium
- United Kingdom
- United States
- Mainland of China
- India
- Sweden
- Switzerland
- Germany
- Mexico
- Colombia
Working with AI to implement the
GEP Customer flow, fully
implement standards, implement
lead for EPs, align expectations and
delivery
Main activities, responsibilities and value for
the for the new GEP flow
MC Structures
11
Based on Steering team suggestions
For Tier 1-2 entities
Or at least 20-30 GEP realisation a year
MC VP iGIP: Experience Delivery, Exchange Processes, LC
management
MC VP BD: Sales of the focus program, MNC sales
Large scale Accounts: BD Managers/ CEEDers as account managers
LCs: Set MC-LC co-delivery model for MC/ Global TNs
For Tier 3-4 entities
MC VP BD: Sales of the focus program, MNC sales
MC Operations/ Manager and LC responsible: Experience delivery, Exchange
Processes
LC- MC Collaboration examples
13
ENTITY MC-LC COLLABORATION MODEL % FOR DELIVERY
Colombia -CLO: Certified LCs to deliver National Partnerships
with MC BD team (cross-sales);
-Shared revenue (depeding on the product and
participation on the sales process ):
-iGIP: TN fee 70%
MC/ 30% LC
-Y2B fee:
60%MC/40%LCs
Mexico -Shared revenue;
-MC is managing account raising&matching process
- 10% (delivery)
US Visa + Matching done by MCVP BD;
-BD regional managers/NSTs;
-Shared revenue (LCs get what they generate/sales -
nonethless they pay a membership fee based on the
revenue generated);
LCs membership fee
based on the revenue
generated;
Switzerland -GC-LC delivery;
-MC tracking and coaching;
-Revenue shared model;
30% (delivery)
ENTITY MC-LC COLLABORATION MODEL % REVENUE SHARED
Sweden -Shared revenue
-MC is selling and matching, LCs are responsible for
delivery/reception;
15% (delivery)
India -Shared revenue (for reception/delivery)
-LCs don’t pay membership fee for NEP/GEP
50% (delivery)
UK -CEEDer structure (with LC collaboration)
-MCLC coaching;
10% (delivery)
Germany -MC raises/GCs match/LCs deliver
-Shared revenue (delivery);
25% (delivery)
Belgium -LC-GC collaboration;
-Shared revenue (raising + delivery done by LCs)
55% (delivery)
Discussion and next steps
16
1. Have you implemented the new CF, Standards
and LEAD already? What are the next steps for your
entity until June?
2. Do you have a clear role and responsibility
allocation in your team/ future team between iGIP,
BD, Managers, CEEDers etc?
17
MC- LC Collaboration
Main questions to answer based on your financial models, plans:
1. Are you sharing revenues with the LCs? If yes how much? Why? What is the
reason behind
2. Are you outlining the roles and responsibilities between MC and LC?
3. Who is getting the realisation on the system? Is the membership motivated by
that?
Regional Sales Questions
Input giving space
19
1. What is the evolution of BD Team that
could benefit your Entity the most?
2. How would you imagine an ideal structure,
collaboration between the Global BD Team,
National BD team and Local BD team?
20

IPM | BD Structural Alignment | Lab Space

  • 1.
  • 2.
    Workshop flow 1. Backgroundof the Project 2. Output of the BD Summit 3. Discussion and Next Steps 4. Sales Structure Questions
  • 5.
    Bottleneck we arefacing Objectives of the summit Role similarity for different roles in Org. BD or other related functions AI BD Team is too occupied in delivery workloads and can not focus on big partnership development. To clarify the roles between different roles(GC/AI/MC/LC) in terms of GEP management for better communication and efficiency. To create the new GEP customer flow and delivery structure to ensure leadership development of GEP Trainees.
  • 6.
  • 7.
    1. If weclarify the roles and responsibilities = save time, resources 2. LC levels unique role is delivery of internships, use AI for BIG Global Partnerships 3. The learning of different levels should be clarified and aligned 4. Collaboration for Existing and new Global Partners 5. Create a proposed structure for the network
  • 8.
    New customer flowfor Global Exchange Partners
  • 9.
    Pilot Entities- Belgium -United Kingdom - United States - Mainland of China - India - Sweden - Switzerland - Germany - Mexico - Colombia Working with AI to implement the GEP Customer flow, fully implement standards, implement lead for EPs, align expectations and delivery
  • 10.
    Main activities, responsibilitiesand value for the for the new GEP flow
  • 11.
    MC Structures 11 Based onSteering team suggestions
  • 12.
    For Tier 1-2entities Or at least 20-30 GEP realisation a year MC VP iGIP: Experience Delivery, Exchange Processes, LC management MC VP BD: Sales of the focus program, MNC sales Large scale Accounts: BD Managers/ CEEDers as account managers LCs: Set MC-LC co-delivery model for MC/ Global TNs For Tier 3-4 entities MC VP BD: Sales of the focus program, MNC sales MC Operations/ Manager and LC responsible: Experience delivery, Exchange Processes
  • 13.
  • 14.
    ENTITY MC-LC COLLABORATIONMODEL % FOR DELIVERY Colombia -CLO: Certified LCs to deliver National Partnerships with MC BD team (cross-sales); -Shared revenue (depeding on the product and participation on the sales process ): -iGIP: TN fee 70% MC/ 30% LC -Y2B fee: 60%MC/40%LCs Mexico -Shared revenue; -MC is managing account raising&matching process - 10% (delivery) US Visa + Matching done by MCVP BD; -BD regional managers/NSTs; -Shared revenue (LCs get what they generate/sales - nonethless they pay a membership fee based on the revenue generated); LCs membership fee based on the revenue generated; Switzerland -GC-LC delivery; -MC tracking and coaching; -Revenue shared model; 30% (delivery)
  • 15.
    ENTITY MC-LC COLLABORATIONMODEL % REVENUE SHARED Sweden -Shared revenue -MC is selling and matching, LCs are responsible for delivery/reception; 15% (delivery) India -Shared revenue (for reception/delivery) -LCs don’t pay membership fee for NEP/GEP 50% (delivery) UK -CEEDer structure (with LC collaboration) -MCLC coaching; 10% (delivery) Germany -MC raises/GCs match/LCs deliver -Shared revenue (delivery); 25% (delivery) Belgium -LC-GC collaboration; -Shared revenue (raising + delivery done by LCs) 55% (delivery)
  • 16.
  • 17.
    1. Have youimplemented the new CF, Standards and LEAD already? What are the next steps for your entity until June? 2. Do you have a clear role and responsibility allocation in your team/ future team between iGIP, BD, Managers, CEEDers etc? 17
  • 18.
    MC- LC Collaboration Mainquestions to answer based on your financial models, plans: 1. Are you sharing revenues with the LCs? If yes how much? Why? What is the reason behind 2. Are you outlining the roles and responsibilities between MC and LC? 3. Who is getting the realisation on the system? Is the membership motivated by that?
  • 19.
  • 20.
    1. What isthe evolution of BD Team that could benefit your Entity the most? 2. How would you imagine an ideal structure, collaboration between the Global BD Team, National BD team and Local BD team? 20

Editor's Notes

  • #4 DA: Explaining the AI expectation for LC/MC/AI contribution to the network overall