My wife seems to like all of that celebrity tabloid stuff -- who's dating who, what it means, etc. I think I frustrate her when I ask "who's that?" when she mentions some celebrity I should know about. I'll be honest with you, I don't get the fascination.
We here in the tech biz have our own version of celebrity tabloids -- the latest breathless press release of who's working with who, what it means, who wins, who loses, and so on.
My day job at EMC is running technology alliances, so it's probably time for me to talk about my job a little. I've come to have a very focused perspective on which of these public proclamations of love really matter to customers, and which can be filed under "misc.".
What's the motivation here?
I've gotten way too cynical at looking at these things. I'd say the majority of big partnership announcements are defensive: two technology vendors are concerned about what another one is doing, and -- together -- they figure out they can tackle the bad guy together.
But the primary motivation here isn't solving customer problems; it's preserving market share against someone who's figured out a trick or two and made some smart investments.
And, like relationships in the real world, getting in to a defensive relationship to protect yourself against someone else doesn't exactly bode well for a long and happy future. Especially for the kids.
There are far fewer technology alliances that are all about offense (as seen by the competition). Two companies get together to address a real customer challenge that no one else can meet. It's not about the competition, it's about making money by solving new problems. Yes, they're trying to put their competitors at a disadvantage (c'mon, we're vendors, remember?) but they're doing it by attempting to create new value. It's definitely got more promise as a basis for an alliance.
Where's the beef?
Another big chunk of industry lash-ups are what I call go-to-market partnerships. Hey, I'll help you with my customers, and you can help me with yours.
Maybe there's a big vendor creating an ecosystem of smaller vendors. Or one vendor has figured out that another vendor is talking to the same customers at roughly the same time with a complementary offering.
Nothing wrong with that (from the vendor perspective) but it doesn't exactly create an inordinate amount of value for customers. It's not in the same league as big players working together to solve some particularly nasty problems for customers.
Customers want real products that really work together to solve real problems. They're looking for value-added integration and support so it's more than 1+1=2. And that takes a sustained investment on behalf of both partners.
Doing deep integration work across company boundaries is difficult and expensive. I'm not talking about interoperability, I'm talking about Feature A in one vendor's product meshing well with Feature B in another's, so that the user is delighted with the integration -- the stuff works together far better than if the work hadn't been done.
Joint support is another hot topic. When I use these two products together, can I call either vendor and you'll work together? Are the support people cross-trained? Is there joint escalation? All of that stuff is difficult and expensive to set up, trust me. But it's the stuff that matters.
Going a bit further, what about the professional services guys? They cross-trained? Do they have a joint methodology they work with the customer? How about the sales guys?
More investment, but more value.
How long has this been going on?
Rich, productive alliances (like relationships!) don't spring out of thin air. You should be able to go back, and see a reasonable history of the companies working together on incrementally more difficult (and valuable) joint undertakings.
It takes a while for two companies to figure out how to work together, how to build stuff together, how to sell it, and how to support it. There's no shortcut that I've seen. And none of it is easy.
Conversely, if it's a new relationship, you may have to wait a while to see what the kids look like. Maybe a long time.
Getting to the win-win-win
Ultimately, I think that the really valuable industry alliances can be thought of as a sustained win-win-win. There's a strategic win for Vendor A, and an equal-sized strategic win for Vendor B, and -- most importantly -- a big win for customers.
Without this win-win-win, sooner or later the relationship (and its associated investment) will get marginalized by one or the other vendor. And when that happens, more often than not it's customers who are left holding the bag. Not good.
If you're being pitched a "strategic relationship" as an inducement to buy something, the best advice I can give you is to look for the win-win-win. And if you don't see it (or it can't be explained to your satisfaction), maybe you should file it under "misc."
Back to the job
So that's a significant part of my job: trying to get to a "win-win-win" with companies like Microsoft, Oracle, Cisco and -- lately -- SAP among others. It takes time, money, patience and perserverance -- and always entails an event horizon that stretches far beyond next week.
Within EMC, I have to work to orchestrate an entire value chain: from engineering, through support, through marketing and sales. I have to work hard to identify areas that represent "win-win-win", 'cause otherwise it'll fall apart in the long run. And I have to work closely with like-minded people at these other companies to do the same thing.
But it's good work on several levels -- you get an extremely broad perspective of not only what your own company is doing, but what everyone else is doing. I really enjoy getting inside other company's strategies, meeting the players, and trying to build something of value.
Best of all, you get to work with pretty cool customers who want to see vendors work closer together.
And you get to learn something new every day.
Comments