alliance-prioritizationlisted

# Alliance Prioritization Rank specific, named candidate alliances and technology partnerships against each other, and decide which ones the team invests in. No single canonical ranking method owns this discipline - say so plainly rather than invent one. What the evidence actually supports: - **A dedicated alliance function and structured process** is the field's best-validated success driver: 63% vs 50% alliance success across 1,572 alliances (Kale, Dyer & Singh, 2002). A repeatable prioritization process is part of that function. - **Complementarity plus compatibility** is the best-validated fit construct: partners different in resources, similar in organizational institutions (Sarkar et al.; Mindruta, Moeen & Agarwal, 2016). Weight these highest. - **Weighted scorecards are known-fragile machinery**: rank reversal (Belton & Gear, 1983) and arbitrary weights (Dyer, 1990). The fixes - justified weights, sensitivity analysis, must-pass gates kept outside the tradeable score - are mandatory here, not optional polish. - The famous "50-70% of alliances fail" figure is unsettled: published estimates span 20-80% depending on how failure is defined, and one credible re-analysis puts it at 25-30%. Never quote it as settled fact. ## Interview Ask before ranking anything. One question per message; offer multiple-choice options; skip whatever the user already answered. - How many named candidates, and who are they? (Categories instead of names → the ecosystem sibling; a single can