Most alliances fail not because of poor intent, but because they lack structure. Following a defined process such as the alliance lifecycle greatly increases the chance of success. Research shows that alliances thrive when managed as evolving systems with clear phases, from strategic intent and partner selection to governance, execution, and review. This structure reduces uncertainty, clarifies roles, and helps organisations learn from each collaboration.
Best-practice companies apply lifecycle thinking to ensure alignment across functions, manage risks systematically, and adapt governance as relationships mature. The process does not replace trust and collaboration; it enables them to flourish by giving the partnership direction and rhythm. In short, process discipline transforms alliances from one-off deals into repeatable sources of strategic advantage.
Many companies use their own version of an alliance lifecycle, typically ranging from five to eight stages. This allows organisations to adapt common alliance best practices to their own needs and structures. This doesn’t mean these alliance lifecycles are fundamentally different. When comparing alliance lifecycles from different companies, you will recognise that they all share three main areas: strategy, design, and management.
Let’s look at the academically grounded alliance development framework described in “Strategic Alliance Management*” by Brian Tjemkes, Pepijn Vos, and Koen Burgers. They distinguish eight stages:
1. Alliance Strategy Formulation
2. Alliance Partner Selection
3. Alliance Negotiation
4. Alliance Design
5. Alliance Launch
6. Alliance Management
7. Alliance Evaluation
8. Alliance Termination
Looking at these stages through the three main areas mentioned earlier, stages 1 and 2 belong to the strategy area; stages 3 and 4 to the design area; and stages 5, 6, and 7 to the management area. Stage 8 can be seen either as a separate stage or as part of the management area.
Contrary to many other alliance lifecycles, Tjemkes et al. have chosen to include a distinct stage for alliance termination. I believe this is the right design choice. Termination happens only once in the lifetime of an alliance but, sooner or later, it happens to every alliance. It can take a while, though. For example, if we consider the Dutch East India Company (VOC), founded in 1602, as one of the earliest alliances, it took nearly 200 years before it reached the termination stage, but eventually, it did.
Organisations that follow a structured approach to alliance creation and management have a significantly higher chance of success than those that jump in ad hoc. If you are part of a large corporation, chances are that you already have your own version of an alliance lifecycle process.
If you are in a smaller company, it still makes sense to follow a basic set of steps for alliance creation and management. You could, for instance, piggyback on the lifecycle described in the aforementioned and highly recommendable book. Or click here and sign up for my “Build Alliances that Actually Deliver” programme, which will guide you through the alliance essentials needed to increase your success rate.
I would agree that Negotiation should come before Alliance Formation. Why waste a whole heap of effort forming an alliance, only for it to fall apart because one of the members cannot agree terms. I would also agree that the most successul alliances are underpinned by executive sponsorship (from both sides) and continous improvement through governance/management.
Lou thanks for joining the conversation. The negotiation versus formation debate is an interesting one. What we often do is negotiate a term sheet before formation and negotiate the actual contract after or during the formation phase. That phase will shed more light on the elements that need to be negotiated and sometimes these steps need to go hand in hand.
Agree completely with you on executive sponsorship; it needs to be on board early on in step 1 already and continuously throughout the alliance (also through a clear governance structure) else an alliances is often doomed to fail.
I developed the global partner recruitment process for SAP in 2005, and it was indeed very consistent with the framework above. A key dimension that is missing though is somehow the capacity planning and white space analysis i.e., from a vendor point of view, where do i need resellers and / or service partners, in which industries, etc … It may sound trivial but is actually the foundation of proper partner revruitment … And hence of succesful win-win partnerships.
Xavier, thanks for your comment and pointing to the missing item. I agree with the importance of the steps you mentioned, for me they are integral part of step 1: “opportunity identification”. Would you prefer to make separate steps for these actions?
My experience is that the exact number of steps (be it six or eight) or the exact names of the steps (transition or implementation) are not as important as the work that supports the identification, development, implementation, and ongoing management of the alliance.
Thanks Craig, agree the number of steps might be irrelevant, it is more about the process and the fact that is really been thought about laying a proper foundation for a future partnership.
Thanks Craig, agree the number of steps might be irrelevant, it is more about the process and the fact that is really been thought about laying a proper foundation for a future partnership.