Challenging Traditional Vendor Governance Models
When I bring up governance in meetings as one of the foundations for strong technology partnerships, almost every executive has a different reaction, expectation or experience that has coloured their perspective on this topic.
Most reluctantly think back to the dreaded ‘Quarterly Business Review’ that they were lucky to find an escape from and haven’t returned since. Some talk about partners who turned an operations meeting into an hour-long sales pitch and others had no experience at all. Some think back to partners who have nailed the art of governance and have found ways to make this an engaging and worthwhile exercise — albeit as typically singular participants in larger ecosystems.
Merriam-Webster defines Governance as “the act or process of overseeing the control and direction of something.” By design Governance is directional and must be forward-looking, leveraging the data, insights, and knowledge from the past to inform the future. When done properly this can help companies build and innovate together and unlock tremendous value for both parties. After many years of seeing bad, good and great governance — I’d like to challenge the idea of traditional governance with a few new ideas:
The More the Merrier
One of the largest changes I would propose is that Governance should not be a One-to-One activity, it should be a One-to-Many. Historically governance is a process that is managed, prepared for and driven by each, individual vendor partnership. What this means is that each governance will have the story told differently, have a different skewing of forward and backward-looking and have a slightly different lens based on their relationships and experience within an organization. Even more importantly each vendor would historically come with their own set of data, in which is it up to companies to find correlations and connections afterwards. Compare this with an inclusive strategy in which governance had multiple vendors working hand in hand to compare data and find real insights, points of accountability and action before meeting with the leaders of a company. Not only would this cut down on the amount of time spent in these meetings but would also amplify the net value significantly.
Governance Shouldn’t Be Driven by The Vendors
With the above shift comes another significant one, which is ‘who owns governance?’ I would challenge that this ownership should shift from the individual vendors, back to the companies themselves who could then assign team members to guide the vendors in advance to collaborate, find stories and connections and create a meaningful discussion during the actual governance. Yes, this would take more preparation in advance, but would grossly increase the impact of the conversation, ensure greater alignment and accountability and foster more of a community around the execution of key business initiatives.
Competition Isn’t a Bad Thing
This shift puts into view the key priorities of a company clearly and visibly. Each partner will be more incented to drive innovation, find unique ways to drive value and perform based on the visibility across the landscape. When there are new service opportunities, there will be more accountability and awareness for partners to strategically bid, invest or partner on them. With this in mind, there would still be a requirement for smaller breakouts for outlining strategic growth plans and initiatives for each partner, but this time could be far more focused and specific in this format.
Let’s Get to Know Each Other
There is a lot of focus from sales and delivery organizations on getting to know their customers, but less on getting to know the partners they are working alongside. Imagine the next gear in delivery that could occur if genuine relationships were formed between the partners in the same way that there was a focus on getting to know customers. By fostering these connections, collaboration and sharing through a new governance format, you could be unlocking something far greater than just a productive meeting.
This may be challenged as an optimistic view of how an ecosystem can operate, but I believe that with the right partners in place who are concerned about the success and growth of their customers just as much as the growth of their top-line revenue, it can work! The process has been proven through collaborative efforts in sprint-like formats like Hackathons, but believe that connecting vendor and partner ecosystems to a greater level will unlock the next gear needed to move companies forward in the coming years.
What do you think?
