Konstantin “Stan”
PonomarevTRANSFORMATION & PROGRAM LEADERSHIP
Menu

Decision framework introduced

CASE 12 / VENDOR & IP STRATEGY 2 MIN READ

Build, buy or co-develop.
Make the trade-off explicit.

Digital programs were using different vendor models without a shared basis for selection. I developed a framework that connected technology maturity and differentiation to the commercial relationship and intended IP ownership.

Jump to the results
4vendor engagement models
CONTEXT
Gazprom Neft · Digital vendor ecosystem
MY ROLE
Framework design and portfolio governance
PERIOD
2019–2020
4engagement options
2 pagesin the decision guide
11programs in the portfolio context

AT A GLANCE

Decision framework introduced

The challenge

Match the vendor relationship to the strategic capability.

My contribution

Develop the engagement taxonomy and decision guide.

The result

A common framework and model-specific contract templates.

01 / THE CHALLENGE

The problem to solve.

A conventional procurement approach could over-engineer commodity purchases and under-protect differentiating capabilities. Speed, customization, ownership and external commercial value had to be considered together.

THE DELIVERY LOGIC ILLUSTRATIVE MODEL

01LicenseMature market capability
02Co-developShared contribution and IP
03Custom buildDifferentiating owned capability
04Partner to commercializeValue beyond internal use

02 / KEY DECISIONS

Where I focused.

The central trade-off

Speed to value and long-term ownership did not always favor the same contract. The framework distinguished commodity capabilities from strategic differentiation before selecting the partnership model.

  1. 01

    Separate commodity from differentiation.

    For mature market capabilities, licensing could provide the shortest route to value. Bespoke development needed a reason grounded in a distinctive operational requirement.

  2. 02

    Make ownership part of the initial decision.

    Distinguished shared-IP co-development from company-owned custom build. Data requirements and the desired independence from vendor roadmaps were decision inputs.

  3. 03

    Create a route for commercialization.

    Included a joint-venture or spin-out model when a capability had external market potential. A concise guide and model-specific templates translated the taxonomy into repeatable use.

03 / THE OUTCOME

What changed.

  • Four engagement models were documented with different selection criteria and ownership implications.
  • A two-page guide supported program directors in choosing the appropriate route.
  • Model-specific templates provided a common starting point with legal and procurement input.

04 / MY ACCOUNTABILITY

A clear line of ownership.

I designed the decision framework as part of portfolio governance. Legal and procurement owned their professional approvals and contract terms. This case does not assert a quantified procurement saving or that every partnership model resulted in a completed deal.

WORKING PRINCIPLE

Choose the relationship around the capability and its future ownership.

Working on a similar challenge?

Let’s discuss the decisions, lessons and experience behind this work.

Discuss this experience

LET’S CONNECT

The next challenge.
Let’s discuss it.

An opportunity, a shared challenge or an exchange of ideas — start a conversation.

Let’s connect

AREAS OF PRACTICE

Transformation management.
Portfolio & program leadership.
AI-enabled business change.

Tampa, FL
U.S. work authorization
No sponsorship required

Executive profile PDF · 1 pageView LinkedIn (opens in a new tab)