We’ve all heard the old saying: “We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.” The line is often attributed to the Stoic philosopher Zeno of Citium, and later echoed by Epictetus. It’s one of those timeless pieces of wisdom that’s so obvious, yet so often ignored.

I’ve been reflecting on how this applies to consulting—and frankly, to leadership in technology as well.

In the rush to capitalize on AI, many early-stage founders are falling into a strategic trap: they’re building platforms. It’s easy to see why—platforms are seductive. They promise scale, defensibility, and investor appeal. But unless you’re sitting on proprietary data, a deep engineering bench, and the balance sheet of a public company, the odds are stacked against you.

Here’s the truth: AI platforms aren’t startups. They’re infrastructure plays. And while early-stage companies dream of building the “next great platform,” the market reality is that Big SaaS already has the distribution advantage—and the clock is ticking for them too.

My time in this forum (and this era) isn’t about me anymore — it’s about shining a light on the work of people I admire. As it relates to the state of affairs in the “new normal” that is Tech, Nathan, Jeff, and Phil are all building something that matters, and I want more people to know about their calls to service.

One of the most important questions executives face when considering or refining a Technology Alliances program is whether to bring in a part-time consultant or hire a full-time employee. The decision has long-term implications for strategy, budget, and ultimately the success of your program.

The right choice depends on your company’s stage, objectives, and readiness. Below is a structured way to think through the options.

But amid the buzz about AI tools being used for Alliances management, I’m seeing something concerning: In all the exuberance, organizations are leaning so heavily into AI they risk eroding the very thing that makes alliances work in the first place—human relationships.

If your company isn’t willing to staff an Alliance program properly, set realistic expectations, and give it the time to bear fruit—don’t bother doing it. Save everybody the trouble and spend your money elsewhere. Please just stop. I’m serious.

Too often, companies try to fix a struggling alliance program by either making superficial changes or starting from scratch without considering what already exists. But alliances are not just contracts or organizational charts—they are ecosystems of relationships, shared objectives, and historical context. They live out in the “real world.”

Many companies approach technology alliances with the best of intentions—but the wrong order of operations. They form a team, start chasing partnerships, and only later try to align those efforts with corporate objectives. The result? A disjointed, inefficient alliances function that struggles to deliver real impact.

There’s a question that sometimes comes up in my consulting engagements: “Would you ever consider coming on board full-time?” My answer is simple and unwavering: No. Never. Not going to happen.

Why? Because I’m not looking for a job—I’m looking for interesting projects where I can apply my expertise, drive real impact, and then move on to the next challenge.

When companies bring in a consultant, they often expect a familiar process: assessment, strategy recommendations, a polished presentation, and then...an exit (“See ya!!!”). This is the pattern that occurs over and over again regardless of the domain of expertise, including mine: Technology Alliances.

While this approach does add value, it often leaves the client with mere theoretical guidance, but no real-world execution.

What do you do when you can’t afford to wait for internal development and don’t want to bet the farm on a high-risk acquisition? What if time-to-market proves to be a challenge for the organic dev and/or acquisition?

You establish a Technology Alliance.

Technology alliances are often hailed as catalysts for growth and innovation. As they should be! Yet, many (actually, make that most) companies clumsily stumble in their execution, leading to missed opportunities and strained partnerships. Before I step foot into any given organization, I’ve got a very good chance of correctly guessing that they’re committing one or more common mistakes.

”Nobody buys a farm because they have a tractor. It’s the other way around."

What do I mean? Your $250,000 solution might be amazing. But if the customer’s project is a $10 million enterprise solution of some sorts, you’re not the farm—you’re the tractor. And the customer’s focus is on the farm (i.e., the big-picture outcomes they need to achieve).

Tech company leaders often craft their Alliances Plans in ink (actually, in my experience, they quite often etch them in stone as if they will last a decade or longer). I’m strongly recommending that they should actually craft them using pencil (with a good eraser!). And they should often hire a Temporary Alliances leader to wield that pencil.

Business still happens IRL with humans. And Alliances are inherently about bringing humans to the table to agree on something (and then DO something). So, when you’re crafting a new partnership, your ability to “make friends and influence people” is typically the difference between mediocrity and consequential success.

The reality is this: An alliance might make perfect sense on paper. It could align with market needs, support the company’s overarching goals, and even complement the product strategy. But if the Product team—right, wrong, or otherwise—is not on board, trouble will follow. Misalignment or resistance from the team responsible for the company’s core offering can stall execution, dilute focus, and ultimately doom the alliance to failure.

There’s an axiom in the fitness world: People tend to overestimate how quickly they’ll see results in the short term but dramatically underestimate the transformative impact over the long term.

This principle doesn’t just apply to exercise—it perfectly parallels the journey of building and sustaining successful technology alliances.

Where should the alliances team sit within the organization? Is it a function of Sales, where the focus is revenue and go-to-market execution? Or should it sit in Product, driving innovation and integration efforts? Perhaps it belongs in Marketing, amplifying the company’s brand through ecosystem partnerships.

As is often the case in business strategy, the answer is nuanced: It depends—and it doesn’t.

It’s not uncommon to hear leaders say, “That alliance failed.” But if there was no Review process in place, the right question to ask is, “How do you know? Did you run the playbook and then review it to programmatically assess success?” If the answer is “No,” then the reality is that the alliance wasn’t given a full chance to succeed in the first place. Without a Review, there’s no clear understanding of what went wrong—or whether the approach simply needed a strategic adjustment. In other words, if you didn’t Review, you didn’t truly try.

If your organization is serious about forming robust technology alliances and delivering a superior customer experience, then TSANet membership is not just an option—it’s a necessity. From accelerating issue resolution and improving operational efficiency to fostering stronger partner relationships and standing out in the market, the benefits of TSANet membership are clear.