partnering case study

© 2011 IBM Corporation

Partnering Relationships

Case Study

10 January 2011


Table of Contents

1. Background and context

2. Diagnosis

3. The Partnering Journey

4. Follow up health check

5. Realising the value

6. References

2 03/05/2023


The relationship was a long-standing one, but mired in under- performance

Background Relationship began as a strategic

outsourcing deal to outsource IT Operations to IBM

Seen as ground breaking at the time of the deal more than 10 years ago

IBM took in a large number of partner staff and over time strongly inculcated them with the IBM culture and values

There was no formal or structured partnering relationship development activities prior to this intervention, although there had been numerous discussions

There had been numerous changes to the senior management and leaders of both partners

Operational performance had consistently failed to meet SLAs and client satisfaction had consistently been low

3

Recent Status Turnover of partner leader and

management team – only 1 with more than 12 months experience in current role

Turnover of IBM leader and management team – few with any length of experience

Contract was coming up for renewal Client satisfaction was low Operational performance was poor, with

SLAs routinely missed Disruptions caused business losses and

customer service issues for partner Contract was financially poor for IBM IBM staff satisfaction was very low, with

issues of health and retention A large IT transformation program was

underway with business-critical deadlines

03/05/2023


It was decided to initiate a partnering program commencing with a survey and executive interviews

The IBM Leader had previous experience with IBM’s Relationship Alignment Method and was a strong advocate – also funding the program

There was joint sponsorship, with each partner committing a senior resource to drive the program

4

Week 1

Week 2

Week 3

Week 4

Week 5

Week 6

Week 7

Week 8

Week 9

Week 10

Week 11

Week n

Lock in sponsorship

Joint Leadership Team Kick-off meeting

Pulse Survey

Analyse data

Prepare Alignment Workshop

Alignment Workshop

Consolidate actions Prepare plan Define measures

Summary Report

Partner teams execute plans

Conduct Interviews

03/05/2023


The IBM Relationship Pulse Survey was used to ensure reliability and validity

5

RELATIONSHIP HEALTH CHECK (PULSE SURVEY) PARTNER AND IBM

1. Mutual benefits 1.1 The business relationship is creating the value expected by both Partner and IBM.

1.2 Both Partner and IBM share fairly the risks and rewards.

1.3 Both Partner and IBM are able to leverage the relationship for their advantage.

1.4 Meeting and exceeding end user expectations is one of the main goals of the outsourcing agreement.

1.5 Innovation is one of the outcomes of the relationship which benefits both organisations.

2. Commitment 2.1 Both Partner and IBM work jointly towards common outcomes.

2.2 The organisational measurement system supports the overall purpose and specific objectives of the relationship.

2.3 Incentives have been established, and they support shared performance in the business relationship.

2.4 People act in a manner that is consistent with the purpose of the business relationship.

2.5 Changes to the business agreement (contract) are routinely and fairly implemented without undue stress.

3. Predisposition & Mindset (Attitudes) 3.1 The term “trust” characterises this relationship well.

• The survey consists of 38 questions (plus demographic questions) organised around the six determinants of effective partnering

• There was provision for free text comments in each section

• The response design was forced choice, i.e. there was no neutral option

EffectivePartnering

SharedKnowledge

MutualBenefits

Linkage Pre-disposition

DistinctiveCompetencies Commitment

03/05/2023


There was an extensive range of data captured and analysed – executive interviews, surveys and comments

6

Global Business Services

© 2008 IBM CorporationPartner and IBM Relationship Pulse Survey

Partner and IBMRelationship Pulse Survey

Analysis, Findings and Recommendations

25 November 2008

Organisation Invitations Responses Rate

Partner 68 55 80.9%IBM 91 67 73.6%

Subtotal 159 122 76.7%

Organisation Executive Manager Team Lead / Member

Partner 7 28 20

IBM 12 28 27

Comments by Organisation Executive Manager Team Lead / Member

Partner 4 11 9IBM 4 11 15

• The response rate to the survey was high – just over 75%

• About half of those who responded also provided comments

• People had something to say and wanted to say it !

• The detailed report ran to 55 pages• An Executive Summary was used to

brief the leadership team• Other versions were prepared for

specific audiences

03/05/2023

© 2011 IBM Corporation7

3.50

3.07

3.20

3.21

3.90

3.40

2.87

2.78

3.18

3.00

3.59

3.03

2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00

Rating by Organisation

Que

stio

n C

ateg

ory

Partner / IBM Relationship Pulse

IBM

Partner

+'ve-'ve

Overall Partner and IBM staff have a consistent negative perception of the relationship health

1. Mutual Benefits

2. Commitment

3. Mindset

4. Shared Knowledge

6. Linkage

5. Complementary Competencies

n = 122

Responses of 1, 2 or 3 were negative. Responses of 4, 5 or 6 were positive. The neutral point is 3.5.

03/05/2023


Things senior managers are most negative about…

1 2 3 4 5 6

Q3.1

Q 1.2

Q 2.5

Q 1.1

The term “trust” characterises this relationship well.

Both Partner and IBM share fairly the risks and rewards.

Changes to the business agreement (contract) are routinely and fairly implemented without undue stress.

The business relationship is creating the value expected by both Partner and IBM.

- ’ve + ’ve

1.61

n = 19

1.79

2.00

Q 4.4Partner and IBM management and operating styles are widely compatible.

1.94

1.95

Q 6.3

Both orgs are linked through effective and efficient processes that support the relationship purpose and…

1.94

Q4.7Communication between both organisations is open and effective.

2.06

03/05/2023

© 2011 IBM Corporation9 03/05/2023

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Strongly Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Slightly Agree Agree Strongly Agree

No.

of P

artn

er S

enio

r Man

ager

s

Distribution of Responses toRelationship Intent Related Questions

Q1.1

Q1.2

Q1.3

Q2.3

Q2.5

Q3.5

2.25

1.83

2.42

2.73

1.73

2.36

1.43

1.71

1.71

2.67

2.43

1.86

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00

Q1.1

Q1.2

Q1.3

Q2.3

Q2.5

Q3.5

Senior Managers

Que

stio

n N

o.

Relationship Intent Related Questions

Senior Mgr - IBM

Senior Mgr - Partner

Both sets of senior managers are strongly negative about achieving the strategic intent of the relationship

n = 19

- ’ve + ’veComments Related to Intent

“I feel that the relationship between the IBM and Partner is not one of partnership, but one of body shopping and very little value add.” IBM Senior Mgr

“IBM are doing the basic tasks to deliver the contract. IBM should be trusted partners / advisors but are performing like paid suppliers with a basic low cost contract.” Partner Senior Mgr

“IBM acts to demonstrate that IBM success is more important than, and separate from, Partner’s expectations from the business relationship.” Partner Manager

“A 'Partnership' requires trust and a mindset/attitude/behaviour which supports the 'Partnership' model. The current mindset/attitude on the Partner/IBM relationship is one of Master/Slave.” IBM Mgr

“Individuals from both organisations have grown into an us and them mentality which is difficult to break down. The ongoing lack of an effective working relationship has eroded what trust has existed in the past to the point that many people are planning for failure of the relationship.” Partner Senior Mgr

n = 7

- ’ve + ’ve


The key points arising from the survey can be summarised as:

1. There is an overwhelmingly negative perception of the health of the relationship in all dimensions except “Complementary Competencies”.

2. Results are very consistent between the organisations and role groups, with variation mainly in the degree of negative perception. IBM team members are the only role group with more than half the group having positive perceptions.

3. Partner are most negative about the lack of equity they are getting in the relationship.4. IBM are most negative about poor financial outcomes from the relationship.5. Both Partner and IBM think the other is benefiting disproportionately.6. Senior managers are virtually unanimous in having a very negative perception of the

current health of the relationship.7. The very negative disposition toward “Mutual Benefits” and “Commitment” indicate a belief

that neither Partner nor IBM is committed to a long-term partnering style relationship.8. Trust and mutual respect are lacking – more so at senior manager level. The intensity of

negative perceptions will make it difficult for senior managers to “talk up” the relationship with any conviction or credibility.

9. Managers and team members from both Partner and IBM are much less negative than senior managers.

10. There is some variation in scores between the Partner business units, but only one is consistently positive.

03/05/2023


The joint leadership team resolved to act to improve the relationship health and business outcomes

11

Briefing for IBM and Partner Leaders• Present results• Confirm planned approach• Commit to support initiatives

Workshop with joint Leadership Team• Review the Partnering

model• Present results

• Discuss and validate results• Commit to action• Identify and prioritise improvement

initiatives• Allocate members of the joint leadership

team to initiatives

Communications Plan - Plan on a page

Initiative: Communications PlanDescription• Drive mutual understanding of relationship and

contract intent• Joint recognition / feedback on great

performance

Key Actions• Identify audiences• Identify channels – forums, round tables, video

conferences• Distill ‘Charter’ into comms plan• Engage comms professionals (IBM & Telstra)• Decompose contract into plain English• Develop Communications Calendar• Feedback Loop – to ensure genuine 1-way

communications

Objectives and Key Outcomes• Develop Communications Plan By: 2 weeks

after Charter• Decompose contract into plain English By:

30/09/09

Responsibilities• …• …

Deliverables• Communications Plan with responsibilities for

delivery• Communications Calendar

Planning Workshop with joint Leadership Team

• Prepare a ‘Plan on a Page’ for each initiative – Description, Objectives, Key Actions, Deliverables, Responsibilities

• Schedule working sessions and reviews• Present plans to Partner and IBM

leaders

03/05/2023


The Joint Leadership Team chose four initiatives to work on, with all members involved in at least one

Initiative: Relationship Charter

Description• Clarify the relationship:

• Vision• Goals• Expectations• Roles and Responsibilities• Award & Recognition

Initiative: Shared Information

Description• Ensure relevant IBM and Partner people have access to

general partner information and role specific information;

• Determine Partner & IBM requirements by role;• Provide access channels;• Provide minimum required content;• Alert existing staff to new capability through

‘Communication’ stream;• Update induction processes.

Initiative: Collaborative Culture

Description• Promote more genuine collaboration between Partner &

IBM to achieve business outcomes for Partner• Sponsor improved methods of “virtual co-location”• Clarify the purpose of Governance meetings

Initiative: Communications Plan

Description• Drive mutual understanding of relationship and contract

intent• Joint recognition / feedback on great performance

03/05/2023


SharedKnowledge

MutualBenefits

LinkagePre-

disposition

DistinctiveCompetencies

Commitment

The teams worked throughout 2009, completing the majority of their programs

Relationship gaps action plan (operational) Relationship expectations developed

(operational) Joint communications strategy validated Shared knowledge matrix & education

Relationship gaps action plan (operational) Relationship expectations developed (operational) Key IBM staff provided with message bank Key IBM staff desk phones diverted to mobiles Co-location pilots conducted Health Checks in place Instant messaging pilot Common “team room” trial IBM contacts circulated within Partner Virtual co-location and collaboration Shared organisational charts

Delivery organisational alignment Combined education in Incident Mgmt Communication of successful

teaming/collaboration Joint project methodology published Passion for Delivery

Workshops Joint executive

podcast

2010 focus on “relationship over time” & “strategic long-term”


In addition there were a number of other ‘business’ initiatives, and two in particular had a crucial impact

Operational Performance Improvement Program

• Under-performance in key SLA areas has long bin a source dissatisfaction and relationship tension

• Many prior attempts to stabilise performance have ultimately proven unsuccessful

• Senior IBM manager brought into the role and given responsibility

• Worked with Partner managers and staff to deeply understand issues, consequences and Partner priorities

• Absolute and unequivocal support from leaders

• By early 2010 had achieved a first ‘all green’ monthly performance report

• Improved performance sustained through the 1st half of 2010

Contract Resigning – Education Program

• As part of contract renewal, funding was allocated to training and cultural alignment of IBM staff working with Partner staff

• Part of the program approach based on ‘right Vs right’, i.e. business scenario based narratives that contrast how two vastly different responses are each right in the context of ones company culture, but not in the partner’s culture

• Both Partner and IBM were also running various other related initiatives, e.g. values, client orientation, talent development, leadership development

Right vs. Right drawn from “Insights from IBM’s Tangible Culture Approach”, Sara J Moulton Reger (2006)http://www.tangibleculture.com/

http://www.tangibleculture.com/


The 2010 Partnering Program commenced with a repeat of the survey to aid planning for a new range of initiatives

1 2 3 4 5 6

Q 1.5

Q 5.3

Q 2.4

Q 6.7

Q 2.2

Joint projects are staffed with skilled and competent individuals who fulfil assigned duties.

Systematic approach to jointly identify problems and address the root causes.

- ’ve + ’ve

n = 18

Q 3.6

The messenger isn’t shot when bad news is delivered.

Q 3.7Issue resolution does not turn into a “blame game” and into “finger pointing”

The organisational measurement system supports the overall purpose and objectives of the relationship.

1.67 Diff

Innovation is one of the outcomes of the relationship which benefits both organisations.

1.53 Diff

1.48 Diff

People act in a manner that is consistent with the purpose of the business relationship.

1.40 Diff

1.27 Diff

1.16 Diff

1.09 DiffPartner

Partner

Partner

Partner

Partner

Partner

Partner

The Roadmap• Map progress made to date against

the Roadmap• Jointly determine 2010 priorities,

within “horizontal consistency’ and vertical progression’ parameters

• Validate 2009 intent to focus more on strategic / longer term dimensions in 2010/11

Relationship Pulse Survey• Measure effectiveness of Partnering

Program and related business initiatives

• Assess the current health of the relationship

• Identify aspects requiring attention for the 2010 Partnering Program

Mutual Benefit Commitment Pre-disposition Shared Knowledge Distinctive Competencies Linkage

5

Both parties achieve above industry average profit,

growth & enhanced brand reputation. The relationship is

known as a driver of value.

Incentives are aligned on relationship performance and

outcomes. Goal setting is integrated within each others corporate planning process.

Leaders are role models. Team members are

indistibguishable from each other. High-performance

teams are the norm.

Knowledge is viewed as a shared asset to be grown,

nurtured, harvested and re-used. ICAP is a source of

competitive advantage.

Resources are treated as a shared pool to ensure the most

appropriate resources are deployed. Personal &

professional development is valued by all employees.

Leaders from both parties are highly involved with communications. All

processes are defined and subject to continuous

improvement.

5

4

Value is enhanced for both of us through innovation and

leveraging intellectual capital. Centres of competence are

established.

The partnering team are proactively involved in

genrerating strategic opportunities.

Self organising teams form around opportunities.

Collaborative relationships and teaming are extended into

the value net.

Thought leadership drives opportunites. Work with each

other's LoB and extended value net extends knowledge

networks.

Specialist competencies as required are sourced from the partnering team, wider partner

organisations and extended value nets.

Common organisation infrastructure is deployed

across partners. Information is freely available through

common access capabilities.

4

3

Complex projects are routinely performed under

shared risk/reward or incentive arrangements, enabled by a disciplined

benefits realisation process.

Relationship-oriented behaviours and individual

development are institutionalised in both

partners performance management processes.

Leaders undertake team development initiatives. Teams are beginning to

develop high-performance characteristics. Trust is high.

Intellectual capital is regularly harvested from projects and initiatives and shared by the

partners. Teams regularly re-use ICAP.

Cross organisation process requirements drive skill

development. Team members are drawn from partners on the basis of skills and capabilities.

Regular professional and social interactions across

organisations occur. Leaders are highly visible and engaged

with both partners.

3

2

Cross-company teams are formed to develop new

opportunities and enhance value through continuous

improvement.

Shared goals are developed and agreed. Performance is monitored and proactively

managed by the Governance Team.

Cross-company teams operate across business as usual

operations and are routinely formed for specific

assignments.

Teams regularly undertake lessons learned instead of

assigning blame and fingerpointing. Learnings are

shared by the partners.

Skills / capabilities, including partnering relationship skills,

for each role are mapped. People have individual

development plans.

Specific processes to improve the partnering relationship performance are developed

and deployed by cross-company teams.

2

1

Economies of scale primarily drive value. IBM is able to

leverage its expertise to provide supplemental value and resolve contingencies.

Line of Business needs and expectations are known and

communicated throughout the partnering team.

Team members are aware of the new way of thinking and are beginning to collaborate

on tasks.

Information is shared across organisations. Team members share information relevant to the task and development of

the team.

New roles and responsibilities re defined and documented.

People understand the purpose and required outcomes.

Communications across organisational boundaries are ocurring on a regular basis.

Leaders are involved in briefing partner groups.

1

0Self interest is pre-dominant. Both parties seek to maximise their benefit, with benefit sharing a rarity.

There is a focus on the contract. Contract scope and service standards are frequent

topics for negotiation.

There is a win/lose orientation. Most work is

subject to competitive tender and often protracted contract

negotiations.

Information is protected. Mistakes and consequent

learnings are hidden.

Skills are defined by contractual requirements. The same skill sets often overlap as IBM operations and client

verifier.

Contact between the organisations is largely

formal. There are few social interactions across teams.

0

Horizontal Consistency

Vertical Progression


3.50

3.07

3.20

3.21

3.90

3.40

2.87

2.78

3.18

3.00

3.59

3.03

2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00


Que

stio

n C

ateg

ory


IBM

Partner

+'ve-'ve 1. Mutual Benefits

2. Commitment

3. Mindset

4. Shared Knowledge

6. Linkage


n = 122

2008

3.96

3.69

3.82

3.97

4.40

3.85

3.63

3.56

4.06

3.83

3.96

3.80

2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00


Que

stio

n C

ateg

ory


IBM

Partner

+'ve-'ve

In a marked contrast to 2008, Partner and IBM staff have a consistent, positive perception of the relationship health

1. Mutual Benefits

2. Commitment

3. Mindset

4. Shared Knowledge

6. Linkage


n = 1082010

2010 – Both Partner and IBM have a positive perception across all six dimensions

© 2011 IBM Corporation03/05/2023

The majority of people from both partners now have a positive perception of the relationship health

Average Median Mode

Partner 3.82 4 5

IBM 3.92 4 5

Joint 3.88 4 5

Average Median Mode

Partner 3.06 3 2IBM 3.34 4 5

Joint 3.22 3 5

2010

2008

Nb. Numbers in red indicate a negative perception, i.e. below the neutral figure of 3.51, 2 or 3 is a negative perception4, 5 or 6 is a positive perception

17

Overall the perception has moved from

negative to positive

The most frequent response to questions by the Partner’s

people was a positive response


Areas of biggest improvement are...

Increase Question

1.28 4.7 Communication between both organisations is open and effective.

1.26 2.3 Incentives have been established, and they support shared performance in the business relationship.

1.17 4.8 Information exchange between the organisations is timely, adequate and pertinent to the business goals.

1.15 1.1 The business relationship is creating the value expected by both partners.

1.06 3.3 Co-workers are convinced that more can be achieved together than alone.

1.02 6.1 Partner and IBM are linked through an adequate organisational structure on strategic, tactical and operational levels.

1.00 1.2 Both Partner and IBM share fairly the risks and rewards.

Increase Question

1.19 4.3 Roles and functions in both organisations are clear and understood.

1.01 4.2 We share a common understanding of Service Level Agreements (SLAs) and Key Performance Indicators (KPIs).

0.80 3.3 Co-workers are convinced that more can be achieved together than alone.

0.76 3.6 The messenger isn’t shot when bad news is delivered.

0.75 4.4 Partner and IBM management and operating styles are widely compatible.

0.72 6.9 There are social contacts between both organisations which benefit the people and the overall business relationship.

0.72 2.2 The organisational measurement system supports the overall purpose and specific objectives of the relationship.

Partner


3.50

2.75

3.75

3.64

3.20

4.18

3.20

3.20

3.60

4.20

3.20

3.60

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00

Q1.1

Q1.2

Q1.3

Q2.3

Q2.5

Q3.5

Senior Managers

Que

stio

n N

o.


Senior Mgr - IBM


2.25

1.83

2.42

2.73

1.73

2.36

1.43

1.71

1.71

2.67

2.43

1.86

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00

Q1.1

Q1.2

Q1.3

Q2.3

Q2.5

Q3.5

Senior Managers

Que

stio

n N

o.


Senior Mgr - IBM


n = 19

- ’ve + ’ve

Senior Managers are now much less negative about the intent of the relationship

19 03/05/2023

20102008

• Partner senior managers perception of the value created improved from an average of just 1.43 in 2008 (1.00 is the lowest possible) to 3.20 in 2010 – although that is still slightly negative

• Partner and IBM senior managers share a relatively consistent view of all intent-related questions, be it negative or positive

• In 2008 Partner’s most frequent response was strongly negative or negative for all these questions, whereas in 2010 none were worse than slightly negative

• “There are encouraging signs that value creation is improving.” IBM Senior Manager

- ‘ve + ‘ve


3.1

2.69

2.87

2.49

2.84

3.73

2.88

2.73

3.76

3.09

2.7

3.24

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00

Q2.4

Q3.1

Q3.6

Q3.7

Q4.4

Q6.1

Senior Managers and Managers

Que

stio

n N

o.

Working Together Related Questions

Senior Mgr + Mgr - IBM

Senior Mgr + Mgr - Partner

Managers are now beginning to be positive about how Partner and IBM are working together

20102008

• Both sets of managers are positive or at least neutral about how Partner and IBM are now working together, whereas it was almost entirely negative in 2008

• Partner and IBM managers share a relatively consistent view of all working together related questions, perhaps except for ‘shooting the messenger’ and ‘blame game’

• “While the people we work with face-to-face appear to have our best interests at heart, getting actions done in the background is difficult.” Partner Senior Manager

• “There has been a great deal of improvement over the last 12 months. There are ‘green shoots’ of trust and I expect this to accelerate over the next few months.” IBM Senior Manager

03/05/202320

4.09

3.51

3.77

3.43

3.53

4.28

3.72

3.6

4.32

4.08

3.56

4.33

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00

Q2.4

Q3.1

Q3.6

Q3.7

Q4.4

Q6.1


Que

stio

n N

o.

Working Together Related Questions



2010

- ‘ve + ‘ve- ‘ve + ‘ve


3.13

2.79

3.49

2.90

3.11

3.05

3.11

2.26

2.82

2.58

2.15

2.58

2.76

2.87

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00

Q4.8

Q5.2

Q5.3

Q6.3

Q6.5

Q6.7

Q6.8


Que

stio

n N

o.

Effectiveness Related Questions



3.88

3.48

4.31

3.59

3.65

3.79

3.88

3.20

3.20

3.28

3.05

3.56

3.38

3.55

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00

Q4.8

Q5.2

Q5.3

Q6.3

Q6.5

Q6.7

Q6.8


Que

stio

n N

o.

Effectiveness Related Questions



However, effectiveness is lagging intent and working well together

20102008

• Overall the perception about effectiveness-related matters has improved significantly• However, Partner senior managers and managers remain slightly negative about most aspects,

probably reflecting both the lag in changes made translating into better outcomes and also a bit of ‘wait and see if it is sustained’ before confirming

• IBM senior managers and managers are slightly positive about most aspects and positive about the skills and competence of people deployed to projects (where a difference of view has opened up)

• “Often successful collaboration depends on the individuals involved and not the culture or processes of the two organisations.” Partner Manager

03/05/202321

- ‘ve + ‘ve- ‘ve + ‘ve


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Strongly Disagree

Disagree Slightly Disagree

Slightly Agree Agree Strongly Agree

No.

of S

enio

r Mgr

s +

Mgr

s

Distribution of Responses to Q3.1Trust in the Relationship

IBM Senior Mgrs + Mgrs

Partner Senior Mgrs + Mgrs

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Strongly Disagree

Disagree Slightly Disagree

Slightly Agree Agree Strongly Agree

No.

of S

enio

r Mgr

s +

Mgr

s

Distribution of Responses to Q3.1Trust in the Relationship

IBM Senior Mgrs + Mgrs

Partner Senior Mgrs + Mgrs

Trust within the relationship has improved, and with the acute negative intensity dissipating

2008 2010

• 22% of all managers rated trust as a strong negative or negative compared with 53% in 2008• Only one person rated trust as a strong negative compared with 22 people in 2008• However, trust remains an issue with the most frequent response “negative” by both groups, although

the average rating did increase by 0.87 in the Partner group and by 0.82 in IBM

• “I feel there is an increasing level of trust between the organisations. However, this trust seems to disperse quickly during major incidents.” IBM Manager

03/05/202322


The key points arising from the 2010 survey and associated comments can be summarised as:

1. There has been a significant across the board improvement in the perception of the health of the relationship from both companies. Contributing factors are likely to be:– Sustained improvement in operational performance, with many long-term performance issues addressed– Wind down of IT Transformation Program– Executive focus on improving the relationship– Changes in the senior management team at both companies– Senior Managers prepared to pick people up for behaviours inconsistent with relationship intent– Execution of a program of work to address deficiencies– Impact of internal change at Partner

2. Partner saw improvements were across all dimensions reasonably equally, except “Complementary Competencies”. In particular Partner believes communications between the organisations and within Partner organisation has improved significantly and they are starting to see value being created.

3. IBM improvement tended more to ‘governance’ related aspects and some early signs of culture change.4. The “Complementary Competencies” dimension has opened up as a new area of difference between the

organisations, particularly in relation to the skills of resources.5. Trust improved across all role groups, but least for team members where the mode remained at “2”.6. The perception of intent and governance has increased , but effectiveness less so. This suggests there

may be a lag while programs take effect AND that more work is needed in effectiveness related areas.7. The ‘contract’ remains as a significant negative for both organisations and needs to be neutralised as an

issue and seemingly constant mismatch between intent and reality on the ground.8. Improvements in perception and the actual ‘climate’ are probably fragile. There is still work to do at the

‘basic expectations’ level, but both organisations are probably ready for work at the ‘value add’ level in parallel.


Mutual Benefit Commitment Pre-disposition Shared Knowledge Distinctive Competencies Linkage

5

Both parties achieve above industry average profit,

growth & enhanced brand reputation. The relationship is

known as a driver of value.

Incentives are aligned on relationship performance and

outcomes. Goal setting is integrated within each others corporate planning process.

Leaders are role models. Team members are

indistibguishable from each other. High-performance

teams are the norm.

Knowledge is viewed as a shared asset to be grown,

nurtured, harvested and re-used. ICAP is a source of

competitive advantage.

Resources are treated as a shared pool to ensure the most

appropriate resources are deployed. Personal &

professional development is valued by all employees.

Leaders from both parties are highly involved with communications. All

processes are defined and subject to continuous

improvement.

5

4

Value is enhanced for both of us through innovation and

leveraging intellectual capital. Centres of competence are

established.

The partnering team are proactively involved in

genrerating strategic opportunities.

Self organising teams form around opportunities.

Collaborative relationships and teaming are extended into

the value net.

Thought leadership drives opportunites. Work with each

other's LoB and extended value net extends knowledge

networks.

Specialist competencies as required are sourced from the partnering team, wider partner

organisations and extended value nets.

Common organisation infrastructure is deployed

across partners. Information is freely available through

common access capabilities.

4

3

Complex projects are routinely performed under

shared risk/reward or incentive arrangements, enabled by a disciplined

benefits realisation process.

Relationship-oriented behaviours and individual

development are institutionalised in both

partners performance management processes.

Leaders undertake team development initiatives. Teams are beginning to

develop high-performance characteristics. Trust is high.

Intellectual capital is regularly harvested from projects and initiatives and shared by the

partners. Teams regularly re-use ICAP.

Cross organisation process requirements drive skill

development. Team members are drawn from partners on the basis of skills and capabilities.

Regular professional and social interactions across

organisations occur. Leaders are highly visible and engaged

with both partners.

3

2

Cross-company teams are formed to develop new

opportunities and enhance value through continuous

improvement.

Shared goals are developed and agreed. Performance is monitored and proactively

managed by the Governance Team.

Cross-company teams operate across business as usual

operations and are routinely formed for specific

assignments.

Teams regularly undertake lessons learned instead of

assigning blame and fingerpointing. Learnings are

shared by the partners.

Skills / capabilities, including partnering relationship skills,

for each role are mapped. People have individual

development plans.

Specific processes to improve the partnering relationship performance are developed

and deployed by cross-company teams.

2

1

Economies of scale primarily drive value. IBM is able to

leverage its expertise to provide supplemental value and resolve contingencies.

Line of Business needs and expectations are known and

communicated throughout the partnering team.

Team members are aware of the new way of thinking and are beginning to collaborate

on tasks.

Information is shared across organisations. Team members share information relevant to the task and development of

the team.

New roles and responsibilities re defined and documented.

People understand the purpose and required outcomes.

Communications across organisational boundaries are ocurring on a regular basis.

Leaders are involved in briefing partner groups.

1

0Self interest is pre-dominant. Both parties seek to maximise their benefit, with benefit sharing a rarity.

There is a focus on the contract. Contract scope and service standards are frequent

topics for negotiation.

There is a win/lose orientation. Most work is

subject to competitive tender and often protracted contract

negotiations.

Information is protected. Mistakes and consequent

learnings are hidden.

Skills are defined by contractual requirements. The same skill sets often overlap as IBM operations and client

verifier.

Contact between the organisations is largely

formal. There are few social interactions across teams.

0

The partners have made progress against their Partnering Roadmap

03/05/202324


The 2010/11 program aims to maintain the basics and cherry pick value adds to strengthen the strategic aspects

Maintain operational

performance

Delighted Partners

Satisfied Partners

Dissatisfied Partners

Reduce duplication of

roles

Innovation Program &

funding

Continuous Improvement

ProgramSkills Audit &

Plan

Value Realisation Program

Model Partnering Team

Must succeed to maintain viability

Value add that builds commitment

Reduce mismatch between contract &

intent


Lessons learned

What went well – do again!• Don’t put all your eggs in one basket – having

initiatives under various programs and not all under ‘Partnering’ was important in involving many people and in getting breadth

• Leaders have to be absolutely committed to the partnering vision and drive activity across all aspects of the relationship and operations

• The people in the relationship improve the relationship – widespread involvement is critical and improves ownership and commitment

• Use of a ‘Partnering Framework’ was important in gaining shared understanding of what partnering meant and a common language

• The role for the consultant moves into the background as coach to leaders and key influencers

• Dialogue around relationship health brought out issues that would normally be un-discussable and allowed a shot at resolution, e.g. personal alignment, trust, competence, fairness

What didn’t go so well – do differently!

• Start where you are at, not where the theory would like you to be – be pragmatic, flexible and allow momentum to build

• Developing trust in the team and opening up on sensitive issues takes time and the ‘right space’. Short workshops / meetings at the workplace are not conducive to that – work hard to get the time required off site

• When people are brought into initiatives ensure they are well briefed and that there is agreed intent, e.g. a company Values Program is likely to be at odds with partnering values (refer Right Vs Right)

• There is always turnover of people, but there is an assumption that the team has a common understanding and commitment to what was agreed. New people weren’t there and can’t have that – make the time to brief and coach them


References


The method was drawn from IBM’s Partnering Framework and Relationship Alignment Method

28


Partnering Relationships

The Case for Investing in the Relationship

10 January 2011

http://slidesha.re/h3G6l1Downloadable copy available at:03/05/2023

http://slidesha.re/h3G6l1


IBM’s book on this new approach has just been published, and it contains a chapter devoted to outsourcing

For more information about the book:http://www.tangibleculture.com/

For more information on Right vs. Right:http://www.research.ibm.com/thinkresearch/pages/2004/20040604_brain.shtml

"This is an excellent book that provides a pragmatic approach to identifying and alleviating cultural issues created when two groups of people must work together. Effectively blending business cultures is a key requirement for successful outsourcing, and most companies lack the tools necessary to do this. Companies looking to reduce outsourcing risk should follow IBM's Tangible Culture approach.“

-Lance Travis, vice president, Outsourcing Strategies, AMR Research

03/05/2023

http://www.tangibleculture.com/

http://www.research.ibm.com/thinkresearch/pages/2004/20040604_brain.shtml

http://www.research.ibm.com/thinkresearch/pages/2004/20040604_brain.shtml


About the author...

Alan Williamson Alan Williamson is a Senior Managing

Consultant in the Strategy and Transformation practice of IBM Global Business Services. Alan has 15 years experience in partnering relationships, business transformation and organisation change across a range of industries and Government in Australia, Asia and Europe.

Alan is IBM’s lead in partnering relationships and Relationship Alignment for Australia, New Zealand and Asia Pacific

Alan authored a number of papers on inter-company relationships and was a speaker at an international conference on business collaboration.

Alan has also facilitated a post-graduate program for RMIT University and has acted as a mentor and coach, both within IBM and his wider professional network.

Alan has a Masters of Applied Science in Innovation and Service Management. His thesis, titled “Unlocking the Potential of Inter-Company Relationships” draws from hands on experience in helping companies establishing productive and healthy partnering relationships.

Alan’s partnering clients include:

Alan can be contacted at: [email protected]

03/05/2023