The puzzle only works when the pieces actually fit.
The difference between a partnership that produces 1+1=3 and a collaboration that produces 1+1=1.5 is rarely visible on the day the paperwork is signed. It is visible earlier, in the conversations that come before, if you know what to listen for.
Over the last twenty-five years I have built partnerships that produced 1 + 1 = 3, and I have entered collaborations that produced 1 + 1 = 1.5, and sometimes worse. I want to name two that worked, then name what they shared, then name what I now check for before I sign anything.
Two that produced 1 + 1 = 3
Beijing, 2001-2003. Barco Digital Cinema and China Film Group.
Barco was a Belgian company making digital cinema projectors when nobody in China had a strategy for digital cinema. My boss and coach at the time was Sjoerd De Clerck. Others inside the company were pushing for short-term transactional deals: sell projectors, close the quarter, move on. Sjoerd gave me the space and the confidence to follow a different route. The strategic-architects route, where you build the future of an industry with the people who will run it, and let the projector sales emerge from the shared plan.
Instead of selling boxes, my colleague Phil Chen and I sat down with the Chinese government authorities responsible for cinema content and infrastructure, and we co-wrote a three-, five-, and ten-year plan for how the whole industry might change: post-production, distribution, exhibition. Barco’s role was a variable in a plan we built together, not a pre-decided answer.
The plan gave China a future to point at. It gave Barco a disproportionate role in that future. It let me prove to myself I was a strategic builder. Within a couple of years, Barco Digital Cinema had over 50% market share, bypassing the incumbent 35mm manufacturer. In 2002 we ran a test streaming the World Cup to twenty Chinese cities via Boeing’s satellite division. We eventually set up a joint venture for local assembly.
The third thing that emerged that neither Barco nor China Film Group could have built alone was a shared long-term relationship in which the future of the industry was discussed at a strategic level. Not a deal. A direction.
Sjoerd’s role is worth naming. Without the internal air cover to say no to the short-term transactional path, none of the rest would have happened. There was a partnership inside the company before there was a partnership outside it. That is a pattern I now recognize in every 1+1=3 story I have been part of.
Southern Europe, 2016 onward. Origin Acoustics EMEA.
I had known Jose Coelho, who runs Origin Acoustics International, for eight years before the conversation that produced the EMEA partnership. Six years earlier, when Jose was still at another company, we spent time together on a joint road trip activating new brands. On that trip I introduced Jose to the founder of Origin Acoustics. Neither of us knew, at that moment, that six years later Jose would be running Origin Acoustics International and would call me with an opportunity that would turn into a deep partnership that still stands today.
This is what OSBB actually looks like in practice. I gave a connection eight years before I could have known what would come of it. Six years later, Jose returned it. Marcel Mauss called this the gift-and-counter-gift cycle. On the road, in real time, it just felt like helping someone I liked.
When the OA EMEA conversation finally happened, Origin needed a lightweight way to grow in Europe. Genesis HTA had already built infrastructure Origin did not have: a fulfillment centre, a proprietary ERP system, know-how in distribution and customer success, and a large customer base ready to test whatever we launched.
Instead of writing a business plan first, Jose and I did the opposite. We opened our books to each other. We stress-tested one idea as lightly as possible. We agreed to use only assets that already existed and were proven. We started small. We iterated constantly.
What neither of us could have built alone: launching Ambisonic in premium outdoor audio, launching Blends invisible speakers, and a supply relationship with a worldwide luxury brand that neither of our companies could have carried alone. Each of those is a project we would not have taken on individually because the risk-to-return ratio would not have justified it. Together, the risk was distributed and the return was faster.
The OA EMEA conversation was not a negotiation. It was the moment two people who had trusted each other for eight years found the specific project the trust could carry.
What both shared
Reading across the two, the pattern is not about strategy documents or synergy slides. It is about four things.
Complementary, not competitive. Barco brought projector technology; China Film Group brought market access and policy authority. Origin brought product; Genesis brought infrastructure. None of these overlap. None steps on the other.
Trust before contract. In both cases, the trust was built through months of conversation before anything was signed. With Origin, the trust had been built for eight years before the specific conversation. The paperwork codified an agreement that already existed in the room.
Expectations that were spoken and calibrated. In each case, both sides asked “how does success look for you in three years?” and answered honestly. The gaps between visions were surfaced early, not left to fester.
A fourth thing that emerged. In each case, something was built that neither side had planned at the start. Barco and China Film Group did not plan the JV. Origin and I did not plan Ambisonic. The partnership created optionality neither side could have created alone.
The shadow: collaborations that never became partnerships
The failures were not partnerships that turned bad. They were never partnerships in the first place. They were collaborations that never crossed the threshold.
Two patterns recur in the ones that failed.
Trust that was not actually there. The signals were early. The first time a small commitment was quietly not honored, and the other side either did not mention it or defended it as an exception. Once you have been through this a few times, you learn to read it. Internally, we say: “If there is doubt, there is no doubt.” When trust is real, doubt does not need to be argued about.
Expectations that were widely different from the start. Sometimes we saw the gap and said yes anyway because we wanted the collaboration too much. That is called failure in delay. The tension builds two-way. The disappointment compounds silently. Eventually it breaks up in a way that looks sudden but was inevitable from month one.
The ones that hurt were not the ones I did not see coming. They were the ones I saw and rationalized. That was the mistake.
The tests we now apply
The doing test. Real partnerships reveal themselves in the rhythm of the work, not in the language of the pitch. So we now set up very short feedback loops in the first months of any partnership. Weekly, if possible. Because in the enthusiasm of the launch, everyone runs, and by the time the first quarterly review arrives, six months of divergence have accumulated silently. Better to catch it in week three.
The money-flow test. The way the money flows signals and determines who owns the customer relationship. Both sides know this even if it is not on paper. And rule number two: if the money flow gets confused, or a customer falls between the two parties, pick up the phone and help the customer. The customer does not care about your partnership architecture.
The three-year conversation. Before anything is signed, we now insist on having the “where do we want to end up in three years together” conversation. Not once. Several times. With both sides. And with two levels of people in the room: the strategic decision makers, and the people who will do the real work every day.
That last point is where most partnerships fail before they start. The decision makers have a version. The doers have a different version. If the two versions are not aligned before the contract is signed, they will diverge under pressure. And they will diverge fast.
One more thing worth naming. Partnerships are undervalued. They get less credit than the big announcements, because they compound quietly, over years, without producing a headline moment. But the value they build often ends up larger, safer, and more durable. The exciting option and the wise option are not always the same.
The one-line rule
If I could give one line to a builder thinking about their next partnership, it is this: have the three-year conversation, several times, with both the strategic level and the people doing the real work. That conversation matters more than any piece of paper or press release you will ever produce together.
And one gate underneath: if there are people in those conversations that you do not trust, do not sign. Not even with the best lawyer in the room.
The puzzle only works when the pieces actually fit.
Be water, my friend. 🌊
Make My Mess My Message is a book written in public, one Friday at a time. This issue first appeared on LinkedIn. Every issue lives here.
Leave a Reply