Lab space output

1. DAY 6
BD Structural
Alignment Workshop

2. Workshop flow
1. Background of the Project
2. Output of the BD Summit
3. Discussion and Next Steps
4. Sales Structure Questions

5. Bottleneck we are facing Objectives of the summit
Role similarity for different
roles in Org. BD or other
related functions
AI BD Team is too occupied in
delivery workloads and can
not focus on big partnership
development.
To clarify the roles between
different roles(GC/AI/MC/LC)
in terms of GEP management for
better communication and
efficiency.
To create the new GEP customer
flow and delivery structure to
ensure leadership development of
GEP Trainees.

6. BD Summit
Output

7. 1. If we clarify the roles and responsibilities
= save time, resources
2. LC levels unique role is delivery of internships, use AI for
BIG Global Partnerships
3. The learning of different levels should be clarified and
aligned
4. Collaboration for Existing and new Global Partners
5. Create a proposed structure for the network

8. New customer flow for
Global Exchange Partners

9. Pilot Entities- Belgium
- United Kingdom
- United States
- Mainland of China
- India
- Sweden
- Switzerland
- Germany
- Mexico
- Colombia
Working with AI to implement the
GEP Customer flow, fully
implement standards, implement
lead for EPs, align expectations and
delivery

10. Main activities, responsibilities and value for
the for the new GEP flow

11. MC Structures
11
Based on Steering team suggestions

12. For Tier 1-2 entities
Or at least 20-30 GEP realisation a year
MC VP iGIP: Experience Delivery, Exchange Processes, LC
management
MC VP BD: Sales of the focus program, MNC sales
Large scale Accounts: BD Managers/ CEEDers as account managers
LCs: Set MC-LC co-delivery model for MC/ Global TNs
For Tier 3-4 entities
MC VP BD: Sales of the focus program, MNC sales
MC Operations/ Manager and LC responsible: Experience delivery, Exchange
Processes

13. LC- MC Collaboration examples
13

14. ENTITY MC-LC COLLABORATION MODEL % FOR DELIVERY
Colombia -CLO: Certified LCs to deliver National Partnerships
with MC BD team (cross-sales);
-Shared revenue (depeding on the product and
participation on the sales process ):
-iGIP: TN fee 70%
MC/ 30% LC
-Y2B fee:
60%MC/40%LCs
Mexico -Shared revenue;
-MC is managing account raising&matching process
- 10% (delivery)
US Visa + Matching done by MCVP BD;
-BD regional managers/NSTs;
-Shared revenue (LCs get what they generate/sales -
nonethless they pay a membership fee based on the
revenue generated);
LCs membership fee
based on the revenue
generated;
Switzerland -GC-LC delivery;
-MC tracking and coaching;
-Revenue shared model;
30% (delivery)

15. ENTITY MC-LC COLLABORATION MODEL % REVENUE SHARED
Sweden -Shared revenue
-MC is selling and matching, LCs are responsible for
delivery/reception;
15% (delivery)
India -Shared revenue (for reception/delivery)
-LCs don’t pay membership fee for NEP/GEP
50% (delivery)
UK -CEEDer structure (with LC collaboration)
-MCLC coaching;
10% (delivery)
Germany -MC raises/GCs match/LCs deliver
-Shared revenue (delivery);
25% (delivery)
Belgium -LC-GC collaboration;
-Shared revenue (raising + delivery done by LCs)
55% (delivery)

16. Discussion and next steps
16

17. 1. Have you implemented the new CF, Standards
and LEAD already? What are the next steps for your
entity until June?
2. Do you have a clear role and responsibility
allocation in your team/ future team between iGIP,
BD, Managers, CEEDers etc?
17

18. MC- LC Collaboration
Main questions to answer based on your financial models, plans:
1. Are you sharing revenues with the LCs? If yes how much? Why? What is the
reason behind
2. Are you outlining the roles and responsibilities between MC and LC?
3. Who is getting the realisation on the system? Is the membership motivated by
that?

19. Regional Sales Questions
Input giving space
19

20. 1. What is the evolution of BD Team that
could benefit your Entity the most?
2. How would you imagine an ideal structure,
collaboration between the Global BD Team,
National BD team and Local BD team?
20