U.S. patent application number 10/992491 was filed with the patent office on 2005-05-19 for system and method for creating, managing, evaluating, optimizing, business partnership standards and knowledge.
Invention is credited to Davidson, William A..
Application Number | 20050108043 10/992491 |
Document ID | / |
Family ID | 42319701 |
Filed Date | 2005-05-19 |
United States Patent
Application |
20050108043 |
Kind Code |
A1 |
Davidson, William A. |
May 19, 2005 |
System and method for creating, managing, evaluating, optimizing,
business partnership standards and knowledge
Abstract
A system and method for determining a business partner value by
creating weighted metrics used for identifying, evaluating and
selecting a business partner for a company; creating a business
agreement and weighted metrics for evaluating the business
agreement; creating weighted metrics for ongoing management of the
business partner; and managing the business partner by ongoing
periodic evaluation of the weighted metrics for partner selection,
agreement, and management. It is anticipated that both the company
and the business partners will participate in the same evaluation
on an ongoing basis; preferably once per month or once per quarter
rather than the usual annual review. In one preferred embodiment of
the present inventive process, the weighted metrics of partner
selection, agreement, and management may be reported, charted and
graphed providing for both visual evaluation and side by side
comparison of the perceptions of both company and business partner
for optimization of the business relationship and prediction of
future performance. It further can be applied in the same manner
and using the same methods to improve demand and customer support
processes and accurately predict corporate performance and results.
It further may create industry standards when companies aggregate
information.
Inventors: |
Davidson, William A.;
(Chicago, IL) |
Correspondence
Address: |
JoAnne M. Dension
DENISON & ASSOCS., PC
212 W. Washington St., #2004
Chicago
IL
60606-3487
US
|
Family ID: |
42319701 |
Appl. No.: |
10/992491 |
Filed: |
November 17, 2004 |
Related U.S. Patent Documents
|
|
|
|
|
|
Application
Number |
Filing Date |
Patent Number |
|
|
60520793 |
Nov 17, 2003 |
|
|
|
Current U.S.
Class: |
705/7.36 |
Current CPC
Class: |
G06Q 10/10 20130101;
G06Q 10/0637 20130101; G06Q 30/0282 20130101; G06Q 10/0639
20130101 |
Class at
Publication: |
705/001 |
International
Class: |
G06F 017/60 |
Claims
What is claimed is:
1. A process for determining business partner value by implementing
the steps of: providing a company, creating metrics for selection
for a business partner for the company, evaluating potential
business partners based on the business partner metrics, selecting
a business partner based at least in part on the metrics for
creating a business agreement; creating a business agreement and
creating metrics for the business agreement; creating metrics for
managing the business partner; and managing the business partner by
an ongoing periodic evaluation of the metrics for the partner
selection, partner agreement and partner management.
2. The process for determining business partner value according to
claim 1 wherein the metrics for partner selection is a weighted
value.
3. The process for determining business partner value according to
claim 1 wherein the metrics for partner agreement is a weighted
value.
4. The process for determining business partner value according to
claim 1 herein the metrics for partner management is a weighted
value.
5. The process for determining a business partner value according
to claim 1 herein the metrics for partner selection, partner
agreement and partner management add up to one hundred percent.
6. The process for determining business partner value according to
claim 5 wherein the business partner value is determined by the
company on at least a quarterly basis.
7. The process for determining business partner value according to
claim 6 further including the step wherein the business partner
value is determined on at least a monthly basis.
8. The process for determining business partner value according to
claim 6 further including the step wherein the business partner
value is determined by both company and business partner at least
on a quarterly basis.
9. The process for determining business partner value according to
claim 8 further including the step wherein the business partner
value is determined by both company and business partner at least
on a monthly basis.
10. The process for determining business partner value according to
claim 9 further including the step wherein the business partner
value is determined by both company and business partner on at
least a quarterly basis is plotted on a graph for evaluation
purposes.
11. The process for determining business partner value according to
claim 2 further including the step wherein at least one of the
metrics for partner selection is plotted on a graph on at least a
quarterly basis for evaluation purposes.
12. The process for determining business partner value according to
claim 3 further including the step wherein at least one of the
metrics for partner agreement is plotted on a graph on at least a
quarterly basis for evaluation purposes.
13. The process for determining business partner value according to
claim 4 further including the step wherein at least one of the
metrics for partner management is plotted on a graph on at least a
quarterly basis for evaluation purposes.
14. The process according to claim 11 wherein both the metrics for
partner selection by company and by the business partner are
plotted together for evaluation purposes.
15. The process according to claim 12 wherein both the metrics for
partner selection by both company and by the business partner are
plotted together for evaluation purposes.
16. The process according to claim 13 wherein both the metrics for
partner management by both company and the business partner are
plotted together for evaluation purposes.
17. A system for determining a business partner value having; a
system module for determining a partner selection value; a system
module for determining a partner agreement value, a system module
for determining a partner management value; and a system module for
determining a partner value.
18. The system according to claim 17 wherein the partner selection
system module further has means for selecting metrics for partner
selection criteria.
19. The system according to claim 17 wherein the partner management
module further has means for selecting metrics for partner
management criteria.
20. The system according to claim 17 wherein the partner agreement
module further has means for selecting metrics for partner
agreement criteria.
21. The system according to claim 17 wherein the partner value
module further has means for calculating a partner value based upon
the values provided by the systems modules for the partner
selection, partner management and partner agreement.
Description
FIELD OF THE INVENTION
[0001] The present invention relates to the field of creating,
managing, evaluating and optimizing business partnerships and
alliances. Included in the present invention is that it relates to
the field of creating measurements that reflect industry standards
for the field of invention and that it also relates to the field of
creating knowledge and business intelligence data and information
in the field. It further creates industry standards for managing
partnerships and alliances, and creates reusable knowledge to
enable the prediction of future performance.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
[0002] The convergence of three business issues relating to
alliances, sales channels and business partnerships creation and
management has led to the substantial need for the development of a
new system and method to create, manage, evaluate, optimize, create
business partnership standards and create re-useable knowledge and
business intelligence as it applies to the alliances, channels and
business partnerships. These business issues are the need to
improve alliance, channel and business partnership effectiveness in
order to achieve desired results; the need to quickly capture
knowledge relating to best practices and the impact of program,
process, product and personnel changes as baby boomers will soon
retire and knowledgeable staff continue to transition to other
companies and; the need to create business intelligence and
knowledge which can only be accurate and predictable if information
on all partnership aspects are captured.
[0003] Since the year 2000 to present, as the economy slowly comes
out of the recession, companies are continuing to seek ways to
increase efficiency and productivity while continuing to drive out
costs. This approach has been very effective in assisting companies
in maintaining profitability. Employees are more productive.
Expenses are tightly controlled. There are very few places left to
create efficiency on many companies' income statements and balance
sheets. Doing more with less does have benefits to the bottom line.
However, too much efficiency greatly impacts employee
effectiveness. Therefore, productivity gains may not be as great as
companies believe them to be.
[0004] As baby boomers start to retire in the next 5 years, as
employees change jobs and go to work for other companies and as the
economy becomes more global, it will become more and more critical
to capture the personal knowledge and experience held by these
employees. By understanding the Strategy Evolution and Impact of
Demand Generation and Customer Support Optimization on Business
Intelligence, Corporate Value and Corporate Strategy, companies can
greatly improve effectiveness and their ability to capture
significant knowledge that will result in increased revenues and
further decreased costs.
[0005] Over the past two decades, there has been an evolution in
customer support and business process improvement. It started with
Information Technology Service Management (ITSM), also called Help
Desk, to support internal computer users. Initially, for those of
us that remember, this was to support internal customers using
mainframe systems that were so large that they could fill a room.
As the acceptance of PCs and PC servers increased and demand for
internal customer support increased, pencils, pens, paper and
spreadsheets became too inefficient to cost effectively support
these operations. Companies had two choices. They could build their
own applications at great expense or look to the outside and
purchase a software solution that would cost effectively, automate
their helpdesk processes. This automation greatly increased
efficiency and, as the helpdesk market matured, drove out costs. As
time has passed, business process management, Six Sigma and ITIL
have been applied to these support processes in order to further
increase support efficiency and customer satisfaction.
[0006] Companies measure process efficiency to determine additional
areas and processes that can be improved in order to increase ROIs.
Service level agreements have become the norm. Processes have been
created to provide self service to company internal customers in
order to increase efficiency and decrease support costs. Solution
knowledgebases have been created to further decrease costs and
improve efficiency and customer satisfaction.
[0007] Over the last decade, there has been an evolution in the
automation of customer support processes. Customer Relationship
Management (CRM) has steadily grown as a mission critical
application in almost all companies. Customer Service, as it was
once called, was a labor intensive, inefficient and costly business
function. As competition in almost all markets has increased, cost
management and customer satisfaction have become critical areas to
manage, the need to automate support processes became critical to a
companies success. Companies again had two choices. Companies could
build an in-house solution or they could purchase a software
solution from the outside. This automation greatly increased
efficiency and, as the customer support market matured, drove out
costs. As time has passed, business process management and Six
Sigma have been applied to these support processes in order to
further increase support efficiency and customer satisfaction.
Companies measure process efficiency to determine additional areas
and processes that can be improved in order to increase ROIs.
Quantitative service level agreements have become the norm.
Processes have been created to provide self service to customers in
order to increase efficiency and decrease support costs. Solution
knowledgebases have been created to further decrease costs and
improve efficiency and customer satisfaction.
[0008] As the market moves forward and the need to further increase
customer satisfaction, business intelligence is becoming the next
"Killer AP" for customer support. Not only are companies dedicating
resources to product research, but they are also gathering human
capital quality data to gain further insight into the customer in
order to improve numerous areas within a company. For example,
instead of just asking a respondent do you like the red product?
Companies are starting to ask and electronically capturing why the
respondent likes or does not like the red product to gain further
insight. Some companies are even asking what would we need to do to
the product for you to buy it even if it was red. At some point,
there will be integration between business intelligence and
predictive modeling. As more data is captured regarding how
qualitative information impacts quantitative results, accurate
predictions, not only regarding customer support will be developed.
This will result in great progress towards company
optimization.
[0009] Sales Force Automation has become a standard application in
most companies. There has been a recognized need to assist the
sales warriors in increasing their efficiency. Salespeople seem to
forget about their paperwork and concentrate on selling. Stacks of
paper are pile on their desks. If someone was to walk by, they
would know that the desk was that of a salesperson. Sometimes, it
seems like the salesperson with the most stacks of paper is the
most successful. In the last decade, there has been a significant
increase in the sale of Sales Force Automation software. This is
for a few reasons. The first is to gain more efficiency in selling
a company's product. It has been felt that if a salesperson is
better organized, the salesperson will hove more time to sell. The
tool houses quantitative information regarding accounts, contacts,
sales quotes, forecasts, calendars and other vital account
information. It tracks the quantitative aspects of the
relationship. Salespeople are often the highest paid individuals in
a company. Their ability to generate demand and revenue is critical
to the success of the company. Their contacts are valuable assets.
If a salesperson should leave and their account information has not
been captured, the company must recreate those contacts and
relationships at great expense and time. SFA tools also provide
insight into how the salesperson spends his or her time. This can
be used to capture knowledge on sales best practices and to
identify areas where the salesperson can improve. As competition in
almost all markets has increased, sales efficiency, cost control
and account knowledge have become critical areas to manage, the
need to automate sales and sales support processes has became
critical to a company's success. A company's measure of a
salesperson's success is by performance. They have also added the
salesperson's proficient and repetitive use of the company's SFA
tool.
[0010] As companies apply business process management and Six Sigma
to its sales function, sales processes and knowledge capture can be
improved. If a company's ability to increase knowledge improves,
the company can then begin to apply business intelligence to its
sales model which in turn will lead to a greater competitive
advantage and ability to consistently increase revenue even if a
salesperson should leave. SFA tools can be integrated with CRM
tools to provide even greater knowledge regarding customers. The
combination of SFA tools, CRM tools and then adding the capture of
human capital quality data will lead to even greater business
intelligence and a company's ability to reduce costs, accurately
predict revenue and further improve a company's overall
performance, and, ROI and EPS.
[0011] So what does all this previous history have to do with
increasing the Partner Value of business partnerships and alliances
through creating, managing evaluating, optimizing, creating
industry standards and creating knowledge and business
intelligence? The creation and management of alliance and business
partnerships is one of the last bastions of business that has a
significant need to have its processes automated, managed and
optimized. As the cost of direct sales organization increases, the
size of the workforce pool decrease and the baby boomers retire,
alliance and business partnerships will become more and more
critical to a company's success. As efficiencies have increased in
the areas of Helpdesk, CRM and SFA, costs have been reduced and
productivity has increased. Most alliance, channel and business
partnership processes are not automated. Some companies use CRM
software, some use SFA software, some use paper, pencils and
spreadsheets and other use PRM software. The most efficient are, of
course, the automated solutions. Current trend and marketing
information indicate that PRM is the next support growth market.
PRM vendors market their solutions with strong ROI benefits in the
areas of increased efficiency and decreased costs. PRM solutions,
unlike CRM and SFA solutions have been designed specifically to
automate the creation and management of alliances, channels, and
business partnerships.
[0012] How have vendors automated partnering activities and what is
left to be done? First, vendors utilized the web to provide
partners with fast and easy access to commonly needed information
as the web evolved. Partner intranets were also deployed to provide
the vendor's employees relevant partner information. Typical
information posted on these sites would be company profiles,
product and service information, key contacts, sales presentations
and white papers. Vendors continued to increase the productivity
gains and cost reductions through automation by implementing
systems that allowed partners to configure and order products
online. Partners have also been provided with online support, web
based training and certification testing.
[0013] PRM solutions were introduced in the lost five to six years
ago. Since their introduction, they hove been used to further
automate alliance, channel and business partnership processes.
Vendors are starting to organize and consolidate their partners
contact, pipe line and contract information as well as, marketing
information. They have been able to automate lead distribution and
campaign management processes. These systems have increased
efficiency in managing partner information and processes, but have
little impact on improving partner effectiveness.
[0014] Vendors have been using legacy systems to track performance
of their resellers, distributors and their own reseller/distributor
account managers. Common practice with SIs and ISVs is to assign a
percentage of the revenue based on the partner's level of
contribution in developing new sales or participation in closing an
existing sale with the vendor's end user salesperson. This is a
manual process and the assignment of sales credit is arbitrary
which can often cost doubt on the creditability of performance
data.
[0015] Vendors use PRM and other tools to gather partner feedback
on vendor performance, marketing issues and products. Most vendors
use surveys as the primary method. This method can be compared to
that of gathering customer data as it applies to feedback using CRM
tools. Vendors don not ask their partners the why and how questions
as part of the feedback process. Results from the partner surveys
are not compared to the responses of what the vendor may answer to
the some set of questions. Human capital quality data from partners
is not captured.
[0016] Partners are not unlike like end customers. They control
what is sold and to whom. As the workforce shrinks, baby boomers
retire and employees change companies, the partners' opinions will
become more important. Surveys are most often conducted once a
year. The survey results are seldom compiled to show year over year
comparisons with the exception of the quantitative data. Knowledge
is not created. The evolving strategy has stopped here.
[0017] How can the strategy continue? The same way that customer
relationship management has, but with additional improvement.
Business intelligence and predictive modeling be applied to
business partnerships, channels and alliances.
[0018] The capture of all reusable knowledge regarding all aspects
of partnership creation, management and performance will provide
vendors with the ability to improve effectiveness, optimize
results, and substantially decrease costs in numerous areas through
analysis of historical data, current market trends and human
capital qualitative data. Business process management principles
will be applied to weak areas of partnership programs to improve
processes. Information will be continuously captured so that
partnerships can be optimized. Once a partnership or many
partnerships are nearly optimized the data can be used to create
business intelligence and enable the use of predictive
modeling.
[0019] What does the future hold? CRM, SFA and PRM will be used to
create knowledge. Initially, this will be done separately. Business
process management solutions will be used to improve processes
along the way. All of the functional areas will include qualitative
and quantitative feedback loops to enable continuous feedback and
create knowledge. Today they do not. The new system and method can
allow data to be analyzed in CRM and SFA as it is for partnerships.
Current market trends and the knowledge that is captured over time
will be combined with research and feedback and be used as business
intelligence. Finally, all of the components of CRM, SFA and PRM
will be combined so that predictive modeling tools that use all
available quantitative data, qualitative data and current
information will accurately predict revenue opportunities, revenues
that will generated, areas where costs can be decreased, processes
that can be improved and there root cause problems across
cross-functional areas, and, what can be done to continuously
optimize company value. The new system method can be used as the
core component of these combined processes so that a single Partner
Value--that can now be called Demand Value, can be calculated.
[0020] It will be critical for companies to capture useable
knowledge that considers all variables that can both aid and impact
success. These variables include both quantitative and qualitative
variables. A strong effectiveness strategy based on both of these
variable sets may become the most important aspect of strong
efficiency strategy.
[0021] Companies are faced with the ongoing task of integrating
numerous disparate systems in order to improve efficiency. In
almost every facet of a business, there are cross-functional
dependencies that con impact results. It has been difficult to
improve a department or function's processes much less the
cross-functional processes that the department doesn't own or
control and yet, depends on. Business process management tools are
aiding in the fight. As companies are improving their department
processes and some cross-functional processes, they seek to add the
creation of business intelligence as the next step.
[0022] However, not seen in the prior art is a comprehensive
approach for the creation, management, evaluation, optimization,
creation of industry standards, and, creation of knowledge and
business intelligence through a closed system and method that
includes a core system and method as its foundation for calculating
a single Partner Value that represents an algorithm of all inputs.
There has been no method wherein the continuous generation of
partner value has been evaluated.
[0023] If a company uses channels and alliance to sell its
products, those channels and alliances should have the same
expertise as the company's direct sales organization. It should be
transparent to the customer, whether the selling organization is
the company's direct sales organization or one of its partners. As
a company creates value in its partners, it will win more sales and
accordingly generate more revenues because it will increase its
effective coverage in the marketplace.
[0024] Most companies use a standard channel and alliance model in
the selection, negotiation and management of its channel and
alliance partners, as shown in FIG. 1. Most companies spend
comparatively little time selecting and coming to agreement with
its partners. They choose to spend more of their initiatives in
channel and alliance management, i.e., managing the relationship.
Managing the relationship generally has meant driving revenue
thought the channel.
[0025] Back in the early 1990's, partners would ask to sign up to
resell a product and, if they had the financial and market coverage
ability, they were generally signed on as partners.
[0026] As the markets that were called on become saturated with a
company's product or its competitor's product, software and
hardware margins have shrunk, commissions to the direct sales force
decreased and all sales become competitive. A company's direct
sales force, including its management, have often tried to take a
large percentage of all and hardware software opportunities
directly to the company and bypassed the partner sales organization
in order to increase margins and keep the direct sales organization
intact. This has been done because of the greater expertise of the
direct sales organization. Channel and alliance partnerships are
becoming partnerships in name only.
[0027] Partner selection has generally been comprised of
quantitative data as to the size of the organization, geographic
reach and ability to pay for sold products. Little time is spent on
qualitative data such as management philosophy, company strategy
and hidden agendas. When a company enters into a partnership, both
companies should know as much about and agree upon the qualitative
data as they do about the quantitative data in order such as
management philosophy, company strategy and hidden agendas. When a
company enters into a partnership, both companies should know as
much about and agree upon the qualitative data as they do about the
quantitative data in order to generate partner value.
[0028] Partner agreements most often reflect the terms and
conditions of the agreement between the companies and nothing more.
As stated above, in a true value generating partnership, it should
be transparent to the customer whether he or she is working with a
direct soles organization or a channel or alliance organization. In
order to generate value, an agreement needs to be more than just
terms and conditions. It must provide for the tools required to
generate value and thus revenue and also for the accountability of
the partnership.
[0029] Partner management is the interfacing with the channel and
alliance partner. After a partner agreement has been signed,
partner management has meant the tracking of a partner's activities
that will lead to sales. It includes such items as sales
forecasting, lead follow up and number of trained product
consultants. It tracks the concerns of the company, namely, sales
revenue. In order to generate partner value, which will lead to the
generation of revenue, companies need to effectively manage the
relationship.
[0030] What is missing today in most channel and alliance
partnerships is a lack of improving the relationship and a lack of
improving the relationship using a repeatable system and method. If
a customer values the relationship with its vendor, that customer
will continually buy from that vendor. In the same way, if a
partner sees that continuously improving value in a channel or
alliance relationship, that partner will strive to generate
revenues and improve the relationship.
[0031] Companies today are moving towards improving their channel
and alliance relationships. They are creating metrics to track
channel and alliance partner satisfaction. Typically, surveys are
used to track some areas of the partner satisfaction. They most
often ask questions about how satisfied the partner is regarding
the partner's relationship with the company as it relates to the
tools and information that the partner needs to generate
revenue.
[0032] Partner management is the primary way to improve the
partnership relationship. The key to increasing partner value is to
capture both quantitative and qualitative metrics and then
continuously improve the partner selection and partner agreement
processes as well as the partner management processes. It has been
identified that there are numerous relationships between the
components that make up selection, agreement and management. As
these sums of these three components of the partner life cycle are
improved, partnership value increases and thus, the expectations of
the parties to the relationship will continue to be met on a long
term basis. This will lead to meeting or surpassing the
expectations of the partnership. The most often used standard
approach to partner management does not address the continuous
improvement of the partnership.
[0033] Further, when the system and method of calculating a Partner
Value is used as it can apply to relationships with employees,
partners, customers and sales people, and, when it also includes
weighted values for outside inputs such as market research,
customer feedback, and product research, in other words, adding
CRM, SFA and research together with PRM and the new system and
method, and, then this Partner Value is calculated, all areas that
need to be improved in relationships are identified and all of a
companies potential product demand can be calculated. The new
system and method is different from all predictive modeling and
partnering tools, technologies and systems and methods, because it
also includes the unseen, qualitative variables of behavior and
culture as they impact need for demand and delivery.
[0034] So, it can be concluded that the new system and method
allows companies to improve the performance of partnerships and
allows them to predict future performance. In addition, when the
new system and method is applied to company support and customer
relationships and company sales and customer/prospect
relationships, and when it includes weighted research variables,
total company demand can be predicted. It is because of the
similarity of process that the Demand Value can be calculated. In
CRM, there is customer selection, customer agreement and customer
management. In SFA, there is customer selection, customer agreement
and customer management. These processes are very similar to
partner selection, partner agreement and partner management as far
as there ability that when waited and combined, can calculate a
very accurate demand value.
[0035] In reviewing the prior art regarding published and issued
patents, there are a number of patents that are somewhat related to
the area of business relationship analysis in a traditional and
commonly understood sense. For example, U.S. patent application
Ser. No. 10/379,188 filed by A. DiMarco discloses the use of a
talent management system that helps organizations attract, develop
and retain critical talent though computer aided visualization and
analysis of various criteria, including a career view, a visual
resume, an autobiography, self assessment, knowledge data, project
experiences, etc. which makes it easier for potential employers to
assemble and analyze desired criteria regarding potential
employees. U.S. Pat. Ser. No. 10/034,820 filed by D. Weeks uses a
variety of objects placed upon a table and manipulated by the user
to characterize and reveal certain personality traits which can
then be used to categorize which types of career roles are most
suited to the individual.
[0036] Further, U.S. patent Ser. No. 10/094,034 filed by C. Fames,
et al. Discloses a method for assessing performance of a customer
experience of an organization. Only a customer survey is conducted,
and this is not optimized with a business organization survey.
However, this method is only directed for determining a model and
evaluation of core competency and it is not directed to graphing or
developing a means for optimizing the relationship between business
partners. Another interesting patent disclosure relating to this
area is disclosed in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/062,688
filed by M.Cohen, et al., which discloses a computer implemented
method and system for assessing performance related data from a set
of performers, but it does not analyze a business relationship from
the view of both a vendor and vendee. U.S. patent application Ser.
No. 10/028,309 filed by Holliday, et al. discloses a system and
process for evaluating a business entity's success in developing
new business, but does not further analyze other aspects of
business relationships.
[0037] Another business system related disclosure found in the
prior art is U.S. Pat. No. 6,556,974 issued to D'Alessandro which
discloses a method for evaluating a current business relationship,
but this is only by taking the surveys of employees and other
persons to be evaluated in the survey which relate to various
aspects of the business operations. Again, it does not evaluate or
optimize a business partner relationship.
[0038] Still a further interesting patent disclosed in this area is
U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/279,159 filed by P.
Morrel-Sammuels which related to a method of providing employee
assessment services including negotiating with an employer to
administer surveys to employees and obtaining performance metrics
relating to the employer's business performance. The survey is
administered over the internet. Similarly, U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,795 and
6,007,340 issued to P. Morrell-Sammuels discloses an assessment
tool which presents a variety of statements to an individual, and
the individual is requested to analyze the statements and provide a
response for the purpose of determining the leadership capabilities
of the individual. Other interesting patents in the prior art are
U.S. Pat. No. 6,119,097 issued to D. Iberra which discusses and
system and method for quantification of human performance factors
and U.S. Pat. No. 4,627,818 issued to VonFellenberg which discloses
a system for psychological testing of individuals which may assess
the empathy, willingness to learn and sociability, as well as
aggressiveness, selfishness, etc. can be determined. However, it
should be noted that none of these systems disclosed relate to the
creation, evaluation and optimization of business partnerships.
[0039] Thus, nowhere in the prior is seen a system or method for
creating, managing, evaluating, optimizing, creating industry
standards and creating knowledge and business intelligence of a
business partner relationship based upon both quantitative and
qualitative criteria surveyed by both parties to the
relationship.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
[0040] The present invention consists of utilizing a continuous
process improvement approach to generating partner value and when
applied, demand value. In the present inventive process model, the
method to improve partner selection, partner agreement and partner
management involves an ongoing, continuous process. This is a
departure from the standard partner life cycle process flow.
Increased partner value is driven by the continuous improvement and
integration of these processes of selection, agreement and
management because they include qualitative cultural and behavioral
measurement that are gathered, calculated and combined to reflect
both sides of the partnership. In the some way, Customer Support
and Sales Force Automation can use the present invention's
principles to calculate its own Demand Value. When all three are
combined and weighted research results are added a total Demand
Value can be calculated to predict future demand that includes all
variables. The obvious similarities between continuous partner
improvement and customer support and sales force improvement is
that both sides select, agree, manage and create value in the
relationship. The present invention provides these tactical
benefits to companies in the following areas:
[0041] Enabling accountability of the alliance and partner
programs
[0042] Measuring the impact and results of any program, product or
personnel change
[0043] Understanding the underlying motivations of partners that
negatively impact results
[0044] Gaining partner mindshare in order to optimize results
[0045] Gaining competitive advantage in the market and with the
partners
[0046] Evaluating joint venture success probabilities and decrease
joint venture risks
[0047] Capturing accurate and precise data that assists in
complying with Sarbanes-Oxley Act
[0048] Creating a sophisticated knowledgebase that will provide
insight into the impact of anticipated changes
[0049] Reducing costs associated with new alliances and new
programs
[0050] In the present invention, the Partner Value calculation is
generated by assigning percentage values for Partner Selection,
Partner Agreement and Partner Management where the total percentage
equals 100%. Unlike the prior art, both business partners score the
some weighted criteria, which can be weighted differently because
the vendor and the vendee's points of view will be different,
providing for two sets of data. The average score or result for
each module is multiplied by the percentage of the Partner Value
attribute for each and then the result is added together to reflect
a Partner Value percent or index of between 0 and 1.000. This
calculated percent equals the alliance or partner value. Unlike
prior, more rudimentary systems, in one preferred embodiment of the
present invention, each of the values for Partner Selection,
Partner Agreement and Partner Management are calculated on a
quarterly or monthly basis and not on an annual basis. Further,
Partner Value which has not been calculated previously will also be
calculated.
[0051] For example, in a Partner Value Model where Partner
Selection represents 15% of the total partner value, the Partner
Agreement represents 10% of the total Partner Value and Partner
Management represents 75% of the total Partner Value the total
value of the relationship equals 100%. As the partner value
increases, revenues or the objective of the relationship will
increase or be reached. The Partner Value Index will can then be
used to predict future performance. This would be done by
determining the variance of the Partner Index Value against 1.000.
For example, if the Partner Value Index was 0.9255, then the
variance that can be used for prediction would be +/-0.0745. This
means that a future performance prediction would be within the +/-
range. This is significant because until the present method there
has been no previous method to accurately predict future partner
performance.
[0052] In the same way, as the Partner Value Model is applied to
CRM and SFA relationships, an index value representing the
relationships can be calculated so that areas for improvement con
be identified and demand predictions can become more accurate.
[0053] Metrics, or measurements, drive the continuous improvement
process. They are captured in Partner Selection, Partner Agreement
and Partner Management and then compared to the objectives and
numeric values in each of the modules. Weights are assigned to each
metric so that the analysis accurately reflects the state of the
relationship and its total value. The weights are assigned by both
parties to the relationship so that each perspective or viewpoint
can be captured. The present system and method allows for each
company down to each individual employee or party, to provide a
weight to each metric. Improvements can then be made in the
relationship in order to increase the Partner Value calculation.
Examples of the metrics are found in the accompanying figures.
[0054] The some system and method can apply metrics, both
quantitative that are used today and qualitative, which are not
using this system and method, including behavioral and cultural
metrics for CRM relationships and SFA relationships.
[0055] The metrics used to calculate Partner Value are defined
based on the objectives of the partnership and expected results for
the partnership. This approach can be applied to any type of
partnership or alliance. The metrics are given an importance value
by the partner with consideration by the initiator. The
contribution value for each module is assigned through management
agreement by the initiator of the partnership during or prior to
the selection process. The same is true for CRM and SFA
relationships.
[0056] Data is collected from each touch point of the relationship.
The present system and method will identify cross-functional
strengths and weaknesses in the processes for selection, agreement
and management. It is unique in that it allows for the analysis of
variables between selection, agreement and management. For example,
it may be identified as a selection weakness as a condition/result
that a partner does not reach its performance objective. Another
example, it may be that a partner's performance deteriorated as a
result of late payments by the vendor and it had nothing to do with
market conditions or lack of resources as originally thought.
Examples of additional relationships are attached.
Sample Partner Value Calculation
[0057] 15% assigned value to Partner Selection
[0058] 10% assigned value to Partner Agreement
[0059] 75% assigned value to Partner Management
[0060] Partner Selection analysis result equals 0.7841 based on
weighted average of metrics.
[0061] Partner Agreement analysis result equals 0.8504 based on
weighted average of metrics.
[0062] Partner Management analysis result equals 0.9029 based on
weighted average of metrics.
[0063] From this, the example Partner Value for the partnership may
be calculated as follows:
1 Partner Value Index of Cal- No. of No. of No. of Summary Report
IndexNo. culations Groups Categories Criteria Partner Value .8799
921 8 33 220 Index Partner Selection .7841 298 6 11 86 Index
Partner .8504 190 1 7 35 Agreement Index Partner .9029 433 1 15 99
Management Index
[0064] The resulting Partner leaves for an almost twelve percent
(12%) improvement in overall performance.
[0065] To ensure accuracy of data in reflecting all aspects of the
partnership in addition to weighting the measurements from
different points of view, the present system method can calculate
the indexes for an unlimited number of inputs. The greater the
number of inputs, the more accurate the calculated data
results.
[0066] If the Vendor and Partner each had 20 respondents, the
number of calculations, at minimum, would be as follows:
2 Quarterly Annually 5 Years Partner Value Index 36840 147360
736800 Partner Selection Index 11920 47680 238400 Partner Agreement
Index 7600 30400 152000 Partner Management Index 17320 69280
346400
[0067] Using the above example and adding that the Vendor had
twenty Partners, the number of calculations would approximate the
following:
3 Quarterly Annually 5 Years Partner Value Index 73680 294720
1473600 Partner Selection Index 23840 95360 476800 Partner
Agreement Index 15200 60800 304000 Partner Management Index 346400
138560 692800
[0068] As the volume of transaction calculations increases, the
data will become more accurate and more precise. This will allow
companies to predict performance, results and areas and processes
that can impact them. This information over time creates standard
information regarding the partnerships of the company and when
combined with the information of other companies, it creates
industry standard information.
[0069] As the volume of information increases over time it also
creates knowledge regarding partnerships, but will also provide
information regarding future performance and the selection,
agreement and management of future partners. The same holds true
with CRM Relationships and SFA Relationships. Customer company
personnel leave their company for better opportunities or to retire
and the present system will allow for the capture of not only
quantitative account information but also qualitative information
including insights into the customer's company culture and
behavior.
[0070] In the above example, the partner achieved 95% of the
revenue expectation and yet, the Partner Value index is only
0.8799. This means that the partnership is 12% short of
optimized--meaning, if the appropriate improvements are made to the
partnership, the revenue or expectation number could increase to
over 100%. In hard dollars, if the expected plan was $20MM,
revenues could increase by over $1 MM.
[0071] The model is a significant invention because it is the first
system and method that can be applied to analyze and optimize most
any alliance or business partnership between two business entities.
It was determined through research and experience that there are
both direct and indirect issues and conditions that can impact the
effective creation and performance of an alliance, channel or other
business partnership. There has been no effective process that
accurately and precisely measures and calculates a value for all
information that identifies all of these issues and conditions.
There also has been no method of collecting reusable alliance and
business partnership knowledge or business intelligence data for
alliances and business partnerships. The drill downs identify every
area where improvement is needed or the relationship is at risk of
non-performance. The impact of any change in personnel, policy,
program or process can be accurately measured. As the database of
information grows over time, knowledge of all that has been added,
changed or tried will be generated so as current management leaves
and/or retires, their knowledge will remain. The same holds true
for relationships that are created and measured for CRM or SFA. The
present system and method can allow for an infinite number of
calculations for a given company to company relationship. For index
values that are outside of business partnerships, alliances and
channels, the index value is called the Demand Value Index.
[0072] Each component also has its own health and optimization
opportunity calculations. The component calculation reflects the
measurement of the aggregate quantitative and qualitative criteria
inputs from both the vendor and partner. As identified areas are
continuously improved, partner optimization will take place causing
an increase in performance and results.
[0073] Quantitative criteria calculations reflect a partnership's
measurement against performance. Qualitative calculations reflect
the measurements of criteria that impact partner performance.
Qualitative measurements are key to understanding the relationship
side of the partnership. It is especially important in highly
competitive markets where products and commissions are becoming
more uniform. Partners are increasingly seeking things that make
life easier and better relationships with their vendors. Partners
have a choice of vendors that they represent. This is more true for
customers.
[0074] Additional information provided by the present system is
summary data regarding the partnership. In the below examples,
index calculations have been generated for the labeled aspects.
Some of the attached reports provide comparisons between vendor and
vendee that demonstrate the differences in perceptions when the
parties of the partnership are asked the same questions. Further,
the weights of the variables to be measured as to their priority
and importance can increase or decrease the variance between the
responses. The present system is unique in its ability to provide
detailed information regarding these variances. For the first time,
vendors will be able to understand how different components of the
partnership impact the results of the partnership. Seemingly
disparate variables can be measured and compared against and across
selection, agreement and management of the partnership where each
calculation will have an impact on the optimization of the
partnership.
4 Partner Partner Partner Partner Partner Index Partner Value
Selection Agreement Management Quota Summary Report Index Index
Index Index Achievement System Integrators .8522 .9412 .8243 .8452
.8872 Independent Software .8947 .8881 .8765 .8223 .9124 Vendors
Channel Resellers .8669 .8259 .8455 .8433 .8616 Referral Partners
.7507 .7878 .8101 .8122 .7443
[0075] Another report shows the following comparison of the vendor
perception compared to the partner perception over multiple
periods.
[0076] Additional detoiled reports of the present invention are
attached including detoiled input and findings information.
OBJECTS OF THE INVENTION
[0077] Thus, it is one primary object of the present invention to
provide a continuous business partner generation, evaluation,
optimization, industry standard creation and knowledge and business
intelligence creation system which utilizes a set of metrics in
order to create a Partner Selection value.
[0078] It is yet an additional primary object of the present
invention to provide a continuous business partner evaluation,
optimization, industry standard creation and knowledge and business
intelligence creation system which utilizes a set of metrics in
order to create a Partner Management value.
[0079] A further primary object of the present invention is to
provide a continuous business partner evaluation, optimization,
industry standard creation and knowledge and business intelligence
creation system which utilizes a set of metrics in order to create
a Partner Agreement value.
[0080] Still an additional primary object of the present invention
to provide a continuous business partner evaluation, optimization,
industry standard creation and knowledge and business intelligence
creation system which utilizes a weighted Partner Selection,
Partner Agreement and Partner Management values which may be
weighted in order to create an overall Partner Value rating which
provides a variance gap calculation between a fully optimized
business partnership and the state of the current partnership.
[0081] Yet a further primary object of the present invention to
provide a continuous business partner evaluation, optimization,
industry standard creation and knowledge and business intelligence
creation system which utilizes a comprehensive set of metrics for
each of the Partner Selection, Partner Management and Partner
Agreement and Partner Value ratings, each of which are evaluated on
a quarterly or more often basis, and not an annual basis.
[0082] Still a further primary object of the present invention to
provide a continuous business partner evaluation, optimization,
industry standard creation and knowledge and business intelligence
creation system which may chart or graph by computer each of the
Partner Selection, Partner Management and Partner Agreement and
Partner Value ratings over a period of time for the purposes of
allowing the business partners to optimize their relationship.
[0083] Yet an additional primary object of the present invention to
provide a continuous business partner evaluation, optimization,
industry standard creation and knowledge and business intelligence
creation system which evaluates, charts and graphs data for each of
Partner Selection, Partner Management and Partner Agreement and
Partner Value ratings, by both parties to the relationship, and not
just the customer or vendee.
[0084] Still a further primary object of the present invention to
provide a continuous business partner evaluation, optimization,
industry standard creation and knowledge and business intelligence
creation system which can be used in the same method to calculate a
some value for the partnership value between a company support
organization and its customers. The only difference between
collecting and calculating such data for this CRM relationship is
the label which is called CRM Value Index.
[0085] Yet an additional primary object of the present invention to
provide a continuous business partner evaluation, optimization,
industry standard creation and knowledge and business intelligence
creation system which can be used in the same method to calculate a
same value for the partnership value between a company sales
organization and its customers. The only difference between
collecting and calculating such data for this SFA relationship is
the label which is called SFA Value Index.
[0086] Still a further additional primary object of the present
invention to provide a continuous business partner evaluation,
optimization, industry standard creation and knowledge and business
intelligence creation system which can be used in the same method
to calculate a same value for the partnership value between a
company sales organization and its customers. The only difference
between collecting and calculating such data for this SFA
relationship is the label which is called SFA Value Index.
[0087] Yet an additional primary object of the present invention to
provide a continuous business partner evaluation, optimization,
industry standard creation and knowledge and business intelligence
creation system which con create industry standards when the
collected data results from the companies within an industry are
combined and averaged to present average industry partnership
results.
[0088] Further as a primary object of the present invention to
provide a continuous business partner evaluation, optimization,
industry standard creation and knowledge and business intelligence
creation system which creates re-useable knowledge and business
intelligence data that becomes increasingly more accurate over time
as more and more additional information is collected and
processed.
[0089] Still as a primary object of the present invention to
provide a continuous business partner evaluation, optimization,
industry standard creation and knowledge and business intelligence
creation system which evaluates, charts and graphs data for each of
Partner Selection, Partner Management and Partner Agreement and
Partner Value ratings, by both parties to the relationship, and not
just the customer or vendee.
[0090] These and other objects and advantages of the present
invention con be readily derived from the following detailed
description of the attachments and drawings taken in conjunction
with the accompanying drawings present herein and should be
considered as within the overall scope of the invention.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
[0091] FIG. 1 is a flow chart of a typical business partner
relationship (prior art).
[0092] FIG. 2 is a flow chart of the present invention showing a
system wherein partner Selection, Partner Agreement and Partner
Management values create a total Partner Value for overall
assessment of a partner relationship.
[0093] FIG. 3 is a diagram with a central flow chart from FIG. 2
which shows the proper interrelation with Alliance Knowledge Base
and Alliance (Industry) Corporate Standards.
[0094] FIG. 4 is a diagram with a flow chart in the center of the
diagram showing it interrelationship with a second flow chart that
predicts corporate requirements and results in a continuous closed
loop. Also on this diagram of an outside flowchart of research and
market information.
[0095] FIG. 5 shows a table of a totals page for New Invention Data
Calculator Process FIG. 6 shows a table of a totals page for
Partner Selection.
[0096] FIG. 7 shows a detail table of a Strategic Fit group for
Partner Selection.
[0097] FIG. 8 shows a detail table of a Strategic Fit for Partner
Resources.
[0098] FIG. 9 shows a detail table of a Strategic Fit for
Quantitative Criteria.
[0099] FIG. 10 shows a detail table of Financial Data.
[0100] FIG. 11 shows a detail table of Partnership Experience.
[0101] FIG. 12 shows a detail table of Geographic Coverage.
[0102] FIG. 13 shows a total and detail table for Vendor Input and
Partner Total of Partner Agreement.
[0103] FIG. 14 shows a detail table for Partner Input for Partner
Agreement.
[0104] FIG. 15 shows a totals page for Partner Management.
[0105] FIG. 16 shows totals for Vendor/Partner Results for Partner
Management.
[0106] FIG. 17 shows a detail table for Vendor Input for Partner
Management.
[0107] FIG. 18 shows a detail table for Vendor Partner Input for
Partner Management.
[0108] FIG. 19 shows a detail table for Partner Input for Partner
Management.
[0109] FIG. 20 shows a detail table for attachment of a new
invention showing its ability to analyze cross functional and cross
index results.
[0110] FIG. 21 shows a detail table for Partner Selection across
impact detail.
[0111] FIG. 22 shows a detail table for Partner Agreement cross
impact detail.
[0112] FIG. 23 shows a detail table for Partner Management cross
functional impact against selection and agreement.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
[0113] Shown in FIG. 1 is a simple, standard flow chart 10 which
illustrates a typical partnership evaluation process at each of the
various process stages. First, a company will determine that it has
a need for a partner or alliance, and it will typically loosely
define these parameters 12. Second, a number of possible partners
will be identified and evaluated for the possibility of forming a
partnership 14. Third, one or more possible partners will be
approached for the purpose of forming a partnership and
negotiations will begin with regard to pricing and terms 16, and
this will typically result in a partner being selected the
negotiated terms being reduced into a written contract. Once a
partnership has been formed, a company will typically loosely
manage that partnership with infrequent evaluations over a period
of time, and reviews will typically occur on an annual basis 18. If
it appears that the partner selected is of limited value, or the
need for such a partnership no longer exists, then the partnership
will terminate, typically on terms predefined in a written
agreement 20. Although this process is very simple and often
proceeds in a somewhat unorganized fashion, it has been the typical
role model for many companies in the past.
[0114] Shown in FIG. 2 is the present invention, partner value
model 20 in which a comprehensive needs assessment 22 is initiated
by the company, then a partner selection 24 process occurs, and as
soon as this process is complete, then partner management 28 become
linked both to the partner agreement criteria 26 and the partner
selection criteria 24, so that a resulting overall partner value 30
becomes a regular assessment of all of these criteria. When there
is no further need for the partnership or the partner value 29
becomes too deficient to the company, then the partner relationship
is terminated by company 32. In any case, since partner selection
24 is continually monitored in conjunction with the partner
agreement 26 and the partner management criteria of 28, this allows
for the optimization of the partner value model 20.
[0115] Shown in FIG. 3 shows the Enhanced Core Partner Value Model
30 which consists of the Core Partner Value Model 32 whose results
generate the Alliance Knowledge Base 32 through the Core Partner
Value Model's 32 use over time. The Alliance Knowledge Base 32,
when combined with the Alliance Knowledge Base's of other companies
in the some industry and is averaged, this creates the Alliance and
Industry-Corporate Standards 36 database.
[0116] FIG. 4 shows the collection of combined industry knowledge
from all listed industries so that alliance information may be
utilized across industry through a single business repository of
knowledge. Business knowledge base 42 applies to all industries and
is linked directly to all individual industries, including but not
limited to: technology 44, telecom 46, pharmacology 24, biotech 50,
financial services 42, supply chain businesses 54, legal services
56 and manufacturing 58. The central repository allows all
industries worldwide to share and utilize alliance and partnership
best practices and knowledge.
[0117] FIG. 5 shows a roll up summary table showing index value
totals for Partner Value, Partner Selection, Partner Agreement and
Partner Management indicating a weighted category value against
Partner Value. It further totals Partner Selection weighted
category totals, Partner Agreement weighted category totals and
Partner Management weighted category totals.
[0118] FIG. 6 shows Partner Selection weighted category totals.
[0119] FIG. 7 shows Partner Selection, Strategic Fit category
detail and weighted totals.
[0120] FIG. 8 shows Partner Selection, Partner Resources weighted
category details and totals.
[0121] FIG. 9 shows Partner Selection, Partner nonquantiative
category weighted details and totals.
[0122] FIG. 10 shows Partner Selection, Partner financial data
category weighted details and totals.
[0123] FIG. 11 shows Partner, Selection, Partnership Experience
data category weighted details and totals.
[0124] FIG. 12 shows Partner Selection, Geographic Coverage data
category weighted details and totals.
[0125] FIG. 13 is a table that shows Partner Agreement category
totals and Partner Agreement, vendor input detail, totals, partner
weighted score and totals and additional items to be considered for
additional consideration.
[0126] FIG. 14 shows Partner Agreement, Partner Input details and
totals.
[0127] FIG. 15 shows Partner Management Category totals.
[0128] FIG. 16 shows a table of Partner Management that shows
vendor/partner data totals results against expected and additional
criteria to be considered for addition.
[0129] FIG. 17 shows a detail table of Vendor Partner Input detail
and totals by category.
[0130] FIG. 18 shows a table of Vendor/Management that shows
vendor/partner data totals results against expected and additional
criteria to be considered for addition.
[0131] FIG. 19 is a table that shows Partner Management, Partner
Input detail and category totals.
[0132] FIG. 20 shows a table of Partner Management criteria
compared against possible cross functional impacts.
[0133] FIG. 21 shows a table of Partner Selection categories
measured against possible Partner Management impacts.
[0134] FIG. 22 shows a table of Partner Agreement categories
measured against possible Partner Management impacts.
[0135] FIG. 23 is a table that shows Partner Management criteria
measured against cross functional details for Partner Selection and
Partner Agreement.
[0136] The following report shows a practical method for an actual
industrial situation.
[0137] Sample 1: Attachment of New Invention that Creates Industry
Standards for Business Partnerships and Alliances
[0138] The attached Figures incorporated herein may be used in
conjunction with multiple companies allows the new invention to
create standards information for the included industry. This is
because the variables measured are the some for each company
included in the industry and by combining and then averaging the
results data for all companies included in an industry set will
result in an industry or standard average for the measured
industry.
[0139] The New Invention is a repeatable process for the capture of
weighted and categorized measurements for Partner Selection,
Partner Agreement and Partner Management that will benchmark
current partnership states, identify specific areas for partnership
improvement, establish standards and essential data and reengage
partnerships that will provide the ability to optimize partnership
results through continuous partner life cycle process improvement.
This process will result in the Partner Value calculation that
measures partnership health and opportunity. An additional result
of this engagement will be the reengagement of program partners.
Over time, the collection and processing of the data and when
combined with the results data of other companies in the same
industry will result in industry standards for the included
industry. Over time, the collection and processing of the data will
allow companies to improve alliance and business partnership
results and create knowledge and business intelligence data that
will accurately predict future results.
[0140] Process
[0141] Pre-Meeting--Identify and schedule management, staff and
partners for kick-off meeting using kickoff-meeting criteria
below.
[0142] Kick-Off Meeting Overview
[0143] The purpose of the kick-off meeting is to assign tasks and
confirm/create the following:
[0144] Create Mission Statement for project and, under a separate
heading, for partners
[0145] Announce project to partners and press
[0146] Project objectives
[0147] Project schedule
[0148] Project roles and responsibilities
[0149] Identification of customer resources for project
coordination (project manager)
[0150] Executive sponsor
[0151] Responsible management and staff
[0152] Select partners for input, analysis and feedback
[0153] Other resources required to gather selected sell through
segment information.
[0154] Kick-Off Meeting Process
[0155] Create Mission Statement for project and, under a separate
heading, for partners
[0156] Create announcement for partners and press
[0157] Review organizational charts for sell through segment
[0158] Engage partners for input collection, analysis and
feedback
[0159] Engage company organization touch points
[0160] Review/gather measurements to be collected
[0161] Assign tasks to management and staff to gather information
and data regarding selection, agreement and management of sell
through segment
[0162] Assign tasks to staff to gather information and data from
selected partners regarding partner's selection process,
partnership agreements and management of partnership by company
[0163] Meeting Set One--Partner Selection Optimization Process
Development
[0164] The purpose of meeting set one is to establish, define,
select, measure and make repeatable the company's partner selection
process so that partner selection optimization can be achieved. It
will include a review of documentation and processes regarding the
partner selection and the identification and selection of partner
selection criteria and categories and the assignment of weights for
the identified and selected measurements. It wll include customer's
partner selection policies, practices, processes, applicable
historical information and qualitative inputs. A number of
interviews will be conducted with responsible management and
staff.
[0165] Meeting Set One Process
[0166] 1. Collect/Review Paper and Electronic Information
[0167] Paper Documents
[0168] Electronic Documents
[0169] Website Information including PRM solutions
[0170] 2. Interview selected management and staff that hove input
into the design of partner selection processes. Discuss, select and
assign criteria and categories and gather input as to the weighting
of criteria and categories. Capture inputs regarding qualitative
criteria and categories.
[0171] Partner Selection criteria
[0172] Partner Selection categories
[0173] Partner Selection groups
[0174] Ranking scales
[0175] Weighting scales
[0176] Add customer selection criteria and categories
[0177] Improvement opportunities to be measured
[0178] 3. Interview selected management and staff that have input
into the identification and selection of potential partners.
Discuss, select and assign criteria and categories and gather input
as to the weighting of criteria and categories. Capture inputs
regarding qualitative criteria and categories.
[0179] Partner Selection criteria
[0180] Partner Selection categories
[0181] Selection groups
[0182] Ranking scales
[0183] Weighting scales
[0184] Add customer selection criteria and categories
[0185] Improvement opportunities to be measured
[0186] Input appropriate information from selected partners
[0187] Determine method and processes required for the continued
collection of data inputs from both company and, partners, if
required
[0188] 4. Design report for Partner Selection
[0189] Capture information from management and staff for input into
partner selection tool
[0190] Calculate partner selection benchmarks
[0191] Calculate partner value input measurement
[0192] Design partner selection reports, charts and diagrams that
identifies selection process watch, re-measure and optimize
opportunities
[0193] Meeting Set Two--Partner Agreement Optimization Process
Development
[0194] The purpose of meeting set two is to establish, define,
select, measure and make repeatable the company's partner agreement
processes and to allowfor the creation and measurement of
customized partner agreements and processes so that partner
agreement optimization can be achieved. It will include a review of
documentation and processes regarding the company's partner
agreement, the selection of partner agreement criteria and
categories, assignment of weights for the identified and selected
measurements and the creation of required processes and other
agreement information to be measured. It will include customer's
partner agreement policies, practices, processes, contracts,
applicable historical information, other related data, and
qualitative inputs. A number of interviews will be conducted with
responsible management, staff and partners.
[0195] Meeting Set Two Process
[0196] 1. Collect/Review Paper and Electronic Information
[0197] Paper Documents
[0198] Electronic Documents
[0199] Website Information including PRM solutions
[0200] 2. Interview selected management and staff that have input
into the design and creation of partner agreements. Discuss, select
and assign criteria and categories, and, gather input as to the
weighting of criteria and categories. Capture inputs regarding
qualitative criteria and categories. Determine responsible staff
required to provide added agreement processes.
[0201] Partner Agreement criteria
[0202] Partner Agreement categories
[0203] Partner Agreement groups
[0204] Ranking scales
[0205] Weighting scales
[0206] Create additional standards and supporting processes, and,
gain initial management approval
[0207] Add customer agreement criteria, categories and measurements
for created processes
[0208] Determine method and processes required for the continued
collection of data inputs from both company and partners
[0209] Improvement opportunities to be measured
[0210] 3. Interview selected partner's management that has
responsibility and input for the negotiation of the partnership.
Discuss, select and assign criteria and categories, and, gather
input as to the weighting of criteria and categories. Capture
inputs regarding qualitative criteria and categories. This step
cannot be started until additional processes and inputs are
gathered and agreed upon in previous step two (2).
[0211] Partner Agreement criteria
[0212] Partner Agreement categories
[0213] Partner Agreement groups
[0214] Ranking scales
[0215] Weighting scales
[0216] Collect partner agreement inputs, criteria, categories and
feedback
[0217] Determine method and processes required for the continued
collection of data inputs from partners
[0218] Improvement opportunities to be measured
[0219] 4. Review results of combined inputs including, criteria,
categories, weights and processes from both company and partners.
Review, formalize and approve additional processes and related
measurements.
[0220] Design Master Partnership Agreement from agreed upon
results
[0221] Design processes to enable modification of agreement as
required during partner negotiations.
[0222] 5. Design report for Partner Agreement
[0223] Capture information from management and staff for input into
partner agreement tool
[0224] Capture information from partner management for input into
partner agreement tool
[0225] Calculate partner agreement benchmarks
[0226] Calculate partner value input measurement
[0227] Meeting Set Three--Partner Management Optimization Process
Development
[0228] The purpose of meeting set three is to establish, define,
select, measure and make repeatable the company's partner
management processes so that partner management optimization can be
achieved. It will include a review of documentation and processes
regarding the company's partner management processes, the selection
of company partner management agreement criteria and categories,
assignment of weights for the identified and selected measurements
and the creation of required processes and other management
information to be measured. It will include customer's partner
management policies, practices, processes, applicable historical
information, other related data, and qualitative inputs. A number
of interviews will be conducted with responsible management, staff
and partners.
[0229] Meeting Set Three Process
[0230] 1. Collect/Review Paper and Electronic Information
[0231] Paper Documents
[0232] Electronic Documents
[0233] Website Information including PRM solutions
[0234] 2. Interview selected management and staff that have input
into the design and creation of partner management strategies.
Discuss, select and assign criteria and categories, and, gather
input as to the weighting of criteria and categories. Capture
inputs regarding qualitative criteria and categories. Determine
responsible staff required to provide added partner management
processes and measurements.
[0235] Partner Management criteria
[0236] Partner Management categories
[0237] Partner Management groups
[0238] Ranking scales
[0239] Weighting scales
[0240] Create additional management standards and supporting
processes, and, gain initial company management approval
[0241] Add customer management criteria, categories and
measurements for created processes Improvement opportunities to be
measured
[0242] Determine method and processes required for the continued
collection of data inputs from both company and partners
[0243] 3. Interview selected partner's management that has
responsibility for the negotiation of the partnership agreement,
continued management and support of the partnership, achievement of
results, and responsible for partner's long-term business planning.
Discuss, select and assign criteria and categories, and, gather
input as to the weighting of criteria and categories. Capture
inputs regarding qualitative criteria and categories. This step
cannot be started until additional processes and inputs are
gathered and agreed upon in previous step two (2).
[0244] Partner Management criteria
[0245] Partner Management categories
[0246] Partner Management groups
[0247] Ranking scales
[0248] Weighting scales
[0249] Collect partner management inputs, criteria, categories and
feedback
[0250] Determine method and processes required for the continued
collection of data inputs from partners
[0251] Improvement opportunities to be measured
[0252] 4. Review results of partner management combined inputs
including, criteria, categories, weights and processes from both
company and partners.
[0253] Review, formalize and approve additional processes and
related measurements.
[0254] Design processes to enable modification of agreement as
required during partner negotiations that may be measured and are
important to Partner Management.
[0255] 5. Design report for Partner Management
[0256] Capture information from management and staff for input into
partner management tool
[0257] Capture information from partner management for input into
partner agreement tool
[0258] Calculate partner management benchmarks
[0259] Calculate partner value input measurement
[0260] Deliver partner management tool, charts and diagrams
[0261] Deliver report that identifies management process which,
re-measure and optimize opportunities
* * * * *