THE PARTNERSHIPS OBSERVATORY
Partnerships change which capabilities firms can access, how they organise activities and what they control. Understand how those arrangements reshape your industry and assess which strengthen your position.
THE PARTNERSHIP LANDSCAPE
The same lab can supply capabilities inside one industry and help create a customer channel in another. Select a lab or industry to inspect examples in the research.[1]
Selected research, including historical, announced and mediated relationships. Connections show participation.
The map covers OpenAI, Google and Anthropic across Commerce, financial services and care delivery, with Microsoft/Azure and AWS/Bedrock shown where they mediate access to a lab. Research cutoff: 7 October 2026. Connections include announced and historical arrangements, with dates and operating status in the source records.
Commerce examines customer journeys and operating responsibilities. Financial services examines how institutions integrate AI while retaining accounts and regulated authority. Care delivery is a further area of investigation.
UNBUNDLING AND REBUNDLING
Partners combine capabilities, assets and permissions in new arrangements. Some activities separate from an existing firm; others become more tightly integrated into its service.[2]
Unbundling separates activities previously performed together. Rebundling connects them in a different arrangement. The examples below show two ways this can happen.
COMMERCE
AI shopping can separate from the provider’s storefront. These partnerships rebundle customer selection with existing transaction infrastructure, goods and service.
Follow this into Commerce →FINANCIAL SERVICES
Institutions retain the account and authority to execute regulated acts in these arrangements. The comparison concerns how AI is integrated into that service, rather than assuming the institution is bypassed.[3]
Why the boundary differs ↓The comparison highlights how service requirements, permissions and authority shape the division of work.
Examine the structural comparison →THREE STRATEGIC QUESTIONS
Connect the purpose of a partnership to its effect on industry structure and the position your firm can build.
01
Explore nine purposes, from AI capability and content rights to customer access and infrastructure.
Explore purposes and examples →02
Examine which activities separate, which stay connected and who retains authority.
Examine partnership structures →03
Assess distinctive contributions, partner dependence and credible alternatives.
Assess competitive consequences →EXECUTIVE TAKEAWAY
Assess what your firm gains alongside what the partner comes to control and how credible your alternatives remain.
Access to a model, customers or infrastructure can improve your service while increasing dependence. Retaining an activity or responsibility does not by itself establish bargaining power. Examine whether customers and partners still need a contribution that others cannot readily replace.[4]
APPLICATION
Shape partnerships around the position you want to build. Define the purpose, partner contributions, rights, economics and alternatives. Assess what to obtain, develop jointly, share or retain.
Explore advisory →COMMISSIONED RESEARCH
Investigate how AI lab partnerships are restructuring your markets. Commission the research, interpretation and analytical experience for your audience.
Commission research or an instrument →Case evidence. Partnerships Observatory, held 30-record cross-domain entrance sample, research cutoff 7 October 2026, and the separately developed Commerce and provisional financial-services syntheses. The map includes announced, historical and mediated participation. The strategic connections drawn here are the Observatory's interpretation.
Theory. Sangeet Paul Choudary, Reshuffle (first edition, July 2025), "Containerization as coordination," pp. 23-24. This informs the distinction between changing a customer interface and coordinating the service behind it. Its application here is the Observatory's interpretation.
Case evidence. Partnerships Observatory, provisional financial-services synthesis, research cutoff 7 October 2026, findings on information, preparation, accounts and execution in the studied banking, wealth and capital-markets arrangements. The selected arrangements distinguish execution plans from operating deployments. Care delivery is a further area of investigation.
Theory. Richard M. Emerson, "Power-Dependence Relations," American Sociological Review 27, no. 1 (1962), pp. 31-41, especially pp. 32-33. Dependence concerns valued outcomes and costly alternatives for the same outcome. The strategic application here is the Observatory's; the analysis examines how alternatives affect negotiating room.
