About Grant Bachelor: Building Partnerships That Drive Growth
From Corporate Roles to Independent Consulting
My path to business development consulting wasn't linear. I started my career in 2008 as a financial analyst at a mid-sized manufacturing company in Detroit, spending three years building financial models and conducting market research. While the analytical skills proved invaluable, I found myself drawn to the strategic questions behind the numbers—why were certain partnerships succeeding while others failed? What made some market entries profitable while others drained resources?
In 2012, I made a deliberate shift to join a healthcare technology startup in Chicago as their 23rd employee. The company had developed innovative patient engagement software but struggled to gain traction with hospital systems. My role was ambiguous initially—somewhere between sales, marketing, and strategy—but I carved out a niche building channel partnerships with healthcare consultants and IT service providers. Over four years, I developed a partner network of 87 active organizations that ultimately generated 43% of company revenue and helped us grow from $3.8 million to $42 million in annual sales.
That experience revealed both the power of well-structured partnerships and the lack of systematic approaches in the field. Most business development professionals relied heavily on personal networks and intuition. I began documenting what worked, creating frameworks for partner evaluation, outreach sequences, and performance management. In 2015, I pursued an MBA at University of Michigan's Ross School of Business, specifically to formalize these practical insights with academic research on negotiation, strategy, and organizational behavior.
After graduating in 2016, I joined a financial services software company as Director of Strategic Partnerships, leading a team of five people focused on partnerships with major banks and credit unions. We closed deals with three of the top ten U.S. banks during my two-year tenure, partnerships worth a combined $67 million over their contract terms. But I also saw how larger organizations often struggled to move quickly or customize approaches for different partner types. The bureaucracy that enables scale can also inhibit the flexibility that partnership development requires.
| Years | Role | Company Type | Team Size | Primary Achievement |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2008-2012 | Financial Analyst | Manufacturing | N/A | Built financial modeling expertise |
| 2012-2016 | Partnership Manager | Healthcare Tech Startup | Solo → 3 people | 87 partners, 43% of revenue |
| 2016-2018 | Director, Strategic Partnerships | Financial Services SaaS | 5 people | $67M in partnership deals |
| 2018-Present | Independent Consultant | Self-Employed | Solo practice | 67 clients, $340M+ in deals |
The Methodology Behind the Practice
I launched my consulting practice in 2018 with a clear philosophy: business development needs the same analytical rigor that finance and operations receive. Too many companies treat partnership development as an art rather than a science, relying on charismatic individuals rather than repeatable processes. My approach combines both—relationship skills matter enormously, but they work best within systematic frameworks that ensure consistency and scalability.
The core methodology I've developed centers on what I call the Partnership Lifecycle Framework, which breaks partnership development into six distinct phases: identification, evaluation, outreach, negotiation, onboarding, and optimization. Each phase has specific tools, metrics, and decision points. For example, the evaluation phase uses a 23-variable scoring system that assesses potential partners across financial stability, strategic alignment, cultural fit, and market positioning. This system has predicted partnership success with 81% accuracy across 200+ partnerships I've helped clients evaluate and pursue.
Data collection and analysis run through every phase. I'm a strong believer in the principles outlined by the National Institute of Standards and Technology regarding measurement and continuous improvement. For each client engagement, I establish baseline metrics, set specific targets, and track progress weekly. This might include pipeline metrics (number of partners at each stage, conversion rates, average time to close), financial metrics (revenue per partner, customer acquisition cost through partners, lifetime value), and operational metrics (partner engagement scores, support ticket volume, renewal rates).
The frameworks I employ draw from multiple disciplines. Negotiation strategies incorporate research from Harvard Law School's Program on Negotiation, which has published extensively on creating value in complex multi-party agreements. Market analysis methodologies use tools from the U.S. Economic Development Administration for assessing regional opportunities and competitive dynamics. Partnership structure decisions reference legal frameworks and case studies from Stanford Law School's corporate governance research. This multidisciplinary approach ensures that strategies work not just in theory but in the complex reality of actual business environments.
What makes this methodology effective is the focus on building client capabilities, not creating dependency. Every engagement includes knowledge transfer components—documentation of processes, training sessions for client teams, and tools they can use independently after the engagement concludes. According to feedback surveys, 78% of former clients report still using frameworks I introduced 18+ months after our engagement ended. The goal is sustainable improvement, not ongoing reliance on external consultants.
| Phase | Typical Duration | Key Activities | Success Rate Impact | Common Failure Points |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Identification | 2-3 weeks | Market research, partner mapping | +15% | Targeting too broadly |
| Evaluation | 1-2 weeks | Scoring, due diligence, prioritization | +23% | Incomplete financial analysis |
| Outreach | 3-6 weeks | Initial contact, value proposition | +18% | Generic messaging |
| Negotiation | 4-12 weeks | Terms, structure, legal review | +31% | Unclear success metrics |
| Onboarding | 6-8 weeks | Integration, training, launch | +27% | Insufficient resources |
| Optimization | Ongoing | Performance tracking, refinement | +34% | Lack of regular reviews |
Client Philosophy and Practice Management
I deliberately maintain a small consulting practice, typically working with 8-12 clients per year rather than scaling to a larger firm. This choice reflects my belief that effective business development consulting requires deep engagement with each client's specific situation—their industry dynamics, competitive position, internal capabilities, and growth objectives. The insights that drive breakthrough results come from immersion, not from applying generic templates across dozens of simultaneous clients.
Client selection is mutual. I decline roughly 40% of inbound inquiries, usually because I don't believe I can deliver meaningful impact given the company's situation, market conditions, or internal readiness. Common reasons for declining include insufficient internal resources to execute recommendations, unrealistic timeline expectations, or market conditions that make the proposed strategy unlikely to succeed. I'd rather turn away business than take on engagements where I can't deliver the 4-5x ROI that my typical clients experience.
My client base spans company sizes from $5 million to $800 million in annual revenue, though I work most frequently with organizations in the $15-150 million range. These companies have usually outgrown founder-led business development but aren't yet large enough to justify a senior VP of partnerships with a full team. They need sophisticated strategies and experienced execution support but require flexibility that large consulting firms can't provide. For more specific information about services and engagement structures, the main page provides detailed descriptions of each offering.
Geographically, about 70% of my clients are based in the United States, primarily in the Midwest and East Coast, with the remaining 30% in Canada and Western Europe. I conduct roughly 40% of engagements primarily remotely, meeting in person quarterly, while 60% involve significant on-site presence, particularly during critical phases like partner negotiations or market entry launches. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated adoption of remote collaboration tools, making distance less of a barrier than it was earlier in my practice.
Pricing is transparent and structured around value delivered rather than hourly billing. Strategy projects are fixed-fee based on scope. Implementation work uses monthly retainers with clearly defined deliverables and performance metrics. I never charge for initial consultations or proposal development, believing that if I can't invest 2-3 hours to understand your situation and determine fit, we shouldn't work together. All contracts include quarterly review points where either party can adjust scope or conclude the engagement with 30 days notice, ensuring that relationships continue only when they're delivering mutual value.
The questions I receive most frequently from prospective clients are addressed comprehensively on the FAQ page, covering everything from typical engagement timelines to expected results to industry experience. I encourage anyone considering business development consulting to review those detailed responses, as they provide realistic expectations about what consulting can and cannot accomplish. Business development is ultimately about building relationships and creating value—consultants can provide frameworks, expertise, and execution support, but success still requires commitment and capability from the client organization.
| Annual Revenue Range | Number of Clients | Primary Industries | Average Engagement Value | Repeat Engagement Rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| $5M-$15M | 18 | Technology, Professional Services | $42K | 56% |
| $15M-$50M | 27 | Healthcare, Technology, Manufacturing | $68K | 63% |
| $50M-$150M | 15 | Financial Services, Manufacturing | $127K | 67% |
| $150M-$800M | 7 | Financial Services, Healthcare | $215K | 71% |