Four ways to make the right decision and act on it.
Each engagement answers a clear business question, checks the facts in the market and ends with a decision or action plan.
01Diagnose & DecideWhat is really happening, and what should we change?
01
Flagship engagement
SEA Performance Review
Best suited for
Companies already in Southeast Asia where growth is below plan, partners are not delivering or headquarters lacks a clear view of performance.
Fixed engagement fee€16,500
Duration: 5 weeks
Management questionWhy is our Southeast Asia business underperforming, and what should we change?
What AQG does
Builds an independent view of what is happening
Reviews distributors, channels and local coverage
Checks the position directly with customers and market participants
Tests demand, competitors and internal assumptions
Identifies the changes most likely to improve performance
What management receives
Clear diagnosis of the performance gap
Decision on what to keep, fix, replace or stop
Prioritised action plan
Standard scope: One business line, one or two Southeast Asian markets. This is a commercial review, not an internal audit or general market report.
02
Focused decision
Opportunity Decision
Best suited for
Companies comparing markets, testing a new opportunity, considering China+1 or deciding whether an investment deserves resources.
Fixed engagement fee€7,500
Duration: 2–3 weeks
Management questionShould we commit resources, and where?
What AQG does
Defines the decision and the criteria for making it
Compares the relevant markets or opportunities
Tests demand, customers, competitors and channels
Checks the key assumptions directly in the market
Assesses fit, risks and resources required
What management receives
Proceed, pause or stop recommendation
Preferred market or opportunity
Conditions and next steps before commitment
Standard scope covers one business question and a focused set of options. It supports a timely decision, not a full market-entry programme.
02Validate & ExecuteWho should we work with, and how do we move forward?
03
Partner decision
Partner Validation & Selection
Best suited for
Companies that need to identify, validate or replace a distributor or commercial partner in a defined Southeast Asian market.
Fixed engagement fee€18,500
OR
Appointment-linked fee€6,5001 + €12,50021 Paid on commencement2 Paid upon partner appointment
Duration: 6 weeks
Management questionWho should represent us in this market, and can we trust them?
What AQG does
Defines what the right partner must provide
Finds and qualifies credible candidates
Checks capability, customer access, commitment and reputation
Tests mutual interest and commercial fit
Compares the candidates and recommends whom to progress
What management receives
Validated shortlist and partner scorecards
Evidence of each candidate’s capability and interest
Recommendation and conditions for appointment
This is partner selection, not lead generation or outsourced selling. Legal, contract and technical work remain outside scope.
04
Ongoing capability
SEA Commercial Partner
Best suited for
Companies that need ongoing Southeast Asia insight and local support without hiring a regional team.
Monthly engagement€7,500
Minimum term: 6 months
Commercial objectiveAdd Southeast Asia capability without building a local team.
What AQG does
Tracks relevant market changes
Checks partners, customers and opportunities
Supports agreed local conversations and follow-up
Provides regular strategic reviews
Moves agreed commercial priorities forward
What management receives
Ongoing market visibility
Direct checks before resources are committed
Local support on agreed priorities
One accountable Southeast Asia partner
This is not outsourced sales or routine account management. Priorities, responsibilities and targets are agreed for each phase.
AQG works with international companies typically between €100 million and €500 million in revenue.
Fees apply to the standard scopes shown. The final question, evidence plan, timetable and commercial terms are confirmed in writing before work begins. Where the situation requires a different scope, terms are agreed directly.
Why AQG
Information is easy to find. Reliable market evidence is not.
Before committing resources, management needs to know whether the assumptions behind a decision are true.
Senior judgement
Start with the decision
We define the question, the assumptions behind it and the evidence needed to decide.
A clear question before any research begins
Direct market checks
Test it in the market
We speak with customers, partners, operators and specialists to find out what is actually happening.
Important assumptions checked directly
Local support
Stay through execution
Where needed, AQG helps assess counterparties, support local discussions and move the agreed priority forward.
Support from decision through first action
Selected experience
Southeast Asia decisions in context.
Examples of the questions addressed, the evidence gathered and the decisions that followed. Details are withheld where required.
01
Electric mobility
Commercial launch strategy for a mid-market electric-mobility company
Management decision
Which customer group should lead the Vietnam launch, what sales model would work and who should be responsible for each part?
Situation
A mid-market electric-mobility company had a defined proposition but a lean regional team. It needed to avoid a broad launch that would spread management attention and partner accountability too thinly.
Evidence
AQG ranked the main use cases, reviewed how customers buy, tested channel economics, defined partner roles and checked the model with local operators and potential partners.
Recommendation
Management could start with one priority use case, assign clear ownership for sales, delivery and support, and expand only when adoption and economics were proven.
Management effect
The launch moved forward with a clear commercial model and decision points.
Management gained a priority customer use case, clear partner roles and evidence for deciding whether and how to scale.
02
Industrial manufacturing
Aftermarket strategy for a mid-market industrial manufacturer
Management decision
Where should the company invest in aftermarket support, what should be handled locally and what should remain central?
Situation
A mid-market industrial manufacturer had a meaningful installed base in Indonesia and Malaysia, but fragmented service and spare-parts coverage. Limited regional management capacity made broad localisation commercially and operationally unrealistic.
Evidence
AQG mapped the installed base and customer sites, estimated aftermarket demand, compared service needs and costs, and checked the findings with operators and industry participants.
Recommendation
Management could prioritise the two markets, move only justified activities locally, keep specialist work central and invest in stages as demand grew.
Management effect
A selective aftermarket investment case replaced broad regional localisation.
Management gained a clear view of what to support locally, what to keep central and when further investment would be justified.
03
Industrial sourcing
Regional supplier qualification for a mid-market crane manufacturer
Management decision
Which Southeast Asian suppliers met the commercial and operational thresholds required to justify formal technical qualification and management attention?
Situation
A mid-market crane manufacturer had limited regional procurement and engineering capacity. It needed to test the sourcing case without diverting scarce technical resources to suppliers unable to meet its specifications, quality systems or delivery requirements.
Evidence
AQG mapped regional suppliers, screened certifications and production capabilities, compared indicative landed costs, contacted priority candidates and validated shortlisted suppliers in market.
Recommendation
Management could concentrate engineering and procurement resources on candidates that cleared the agreed capability, quality and commercial thresholds, with a defined qualification sequence for each.
Management effect
A broad supplier universe became a controlled qualification pipeline.
The work gave management a defensible basis for allocating scarce technical resources and testing the regional sourcing case without lowering qualification standards.
04
Healthcare diagnostics
Market-access priorities for a mid-market diagnostics manufacturer
Management decision
Which of Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand warranted priority, which access pathway was viable and what capabilities were required from a local partner?
Situation
A mid-market diagnostics manufacturer lacked a large regional market-access team. Regulatory pathways, customer access and partner requirements differed materially across the three markets, making headline demand an unreliable guide.
Evidence
AQG compared regulatory and reimbursement conditions, demand, customer segments and routes to market, then translated the findings into country-specific partner requirements.
Recommendation
Management could sequence the markets by commercial accessibility and assess prospective partners against the regulatory, clinical-support and customer-coverage criteria relevant to each country.
Management effect
Three markets were converted into a sequenced access and partner agenda.
Management gained clearer country priorities, decision-critical access requirements and partner criteria calibrated to the realities of each market.
05
Luxury goods
Market and channel priorities for a family-owned luxury-goods company
Management decision
What role should Thailand, Singapore and Vietnam play, which route-to-market model suited each and what level of control was required to protect brand equity?
Situation
A family-owned luxury-goods company had a selective international footprint and limited appetite for fixed regional overhead. It needed to balance addressable demand, premium retail access, partner dependence and brand control.
Evidence
AQG assessed affluent demand, mapped premium retail and distribution, reviewed competitors and pricing, modelled channel economics and defined the partner profile required in each market.
Recommendation
Management could assign a distinct commercial role to each market and vary channel control, partner criteria and investment according to local economics rather than applying one regional model.
Management effect
A single regional ambition became three distinct market choices.
Management gained a clearer basis for sequencing investment, choosing channel models and protecting brand control as distribution developed.
This experience includes AQG work and relevant assignments completed by the founder in earlier consulting roles. Historical clients are not presented as AQG clients. Details are withheld where required.
Define the decision, the assumptions and the evidence needed before committing resources.
02
Market validation
Check the key market, customer, competitor, channel and partner assumptions directly.
03
Expert judgement
Assess the evidence against the company’s economics, capabilities and resources.
04
Commercial action
Make the decision and, where needed, support the first stage of execution.
Regional coverage
One regional base. Market-specific evidence.
AQG is based in Ho Chi Minh City. We bring in local experts when needed and check findings directly with customers, distributors, suppliers and sector specialists.
Executive takeaway: Market size is one input. The decision also depends on the company’s ability to build a profitable, supportable position.
The question management should answer
Which Southeast Asian market gives this company the best realistic chance of building a strong business with the capital, management time and resources available?
Country rankings often begin with GDP, population, sector growth and estimated addressable demand. These are useful screening inputs, but they frequently favour the largest market even when the company lacks the price point, channel access, local support model or management bandwidth required to win there.
Six filters that can reverse the ranking
Customer concentration: whether demand is accessible through a manageable number of priority accounts or fragmented across thousands of buyers.
Product and price fit: whether the existing offer solves a sufficiently important local problem at an acceptable total cost.
Route-to-market feasibility: whether credible distributors, direct-sales talent or strategic partners can provide the required coverage.
Service intensity: the technical support, inventory, training and response time customers will expect after the sale.
Regulatory and operating friction: approvals, ownership constraints, import requirements, contracting practices and payment risk.
Company readiness: the capital, senior attention and local decision rights the business can realistically commit.
A more useful comparison
Separate market attractiveness from company readiness. A highly attractive market with low company readiness may be a long-term priority but a poor first move. A smaller market with concentrated customers, a credible channel and lower support requirements can create faster learning and a more controlled regional platform.
The assessment should also state what must be true for the recommendation to remain valid. If success depends on a capable distributor, regulatory approval or a minimum price, those conditions should become clear decision points rather than footnotes.
Warning signs in a market-prioritisation study
The top-ranked market is simply the country with the largest estimated TAM.
Every criterion is based on secondary data and none tests customer behaviour.
The analysis ignores the resources required to support the market after entry.
The conclusion recommends several countries without a clear sequence or no-go condition.
AQG view
The strongest first market is usually the one where evidence, economics and execution capacity overlap. Management should leave the exercise with one priority, the reasons it outranks the alternatives, the assumptions still requiring validation and a clear next decision gate.
Executive takeaway: Distributor selection should follow clear choices on target customers, commercial economics and performance governance.
Start with the commercial system
Companies often begin by asking for a distributor list. That reverses the logic. Before evaluating counterparties, management should define the commercial system the market requires: priority customers, buying process, coverage model, technical support, inventory needs, target margins and the degree of control the company cannot afford to surrender.
A distributor can provide access, local relationships, logistics and selling capacity. It cannot compensate for an unclear customer proposition, an uncompetitive price architecture or a headquarters team unwilling to support the market.
Translate the strategy into partner requirements
Access: demonstrated relationships with the specific accounts and decision-makers that matter.
Capability: sales, application, technical and after-sales resources appropriate to the offer.
Commitment: willingness to assign people, inventory, marketing effort and management attention.
Economics: margins and working-capital requirements that remain viable for both parties.
Strategic fit: a portfolio that complements rather than crowds out the company’s products.
Governance: transparency, pipeline discipline, data sharing and acceptance of agreed performance reviews.
Evidence matters more than reputation
A prominent distributor may still be the wrong partner. Large portfolios can reduce focus; nationwide claims may conceal weak coverage in the relevant vertical; strong relationships may sit with one individual rather than the organisation. Assertions should be tested through customer references, team interviews, pipeline evidence and a realistic joint business case.
Compare the real alternatives
The choice is rarely “distributor or nothing.” Direct selling, agents, value-added resellers, strategic partnerships, joint ventures and selective acquisition should be compared against the same commercial requirements. Hybrid models are often appropriate: direct control of strategic accounts combined with local partners for coverage, service or logistics.
Define the operating model before contracting
Many relationships underperform because the agreement defines territory and margin but not operating behaviour. Before launch, both parties should agree target accounts, named resources, lead ownership, pipeline reporting, inventory expectations, technical responsibilities, review cadence and the conditions that trigger correction or exit.
AQG view
Select the route to market first and the organisation second. The strongest counterpart is the one able to execute the required commercial model, accept transparent governance and demonstrate genuine interest.
Executive takeaway: China+1 creates resilience only when the alternative operating model works after qualification costs, management effort and transition risk are included.
The false shortcut
A credible China+1 case extends beyond supplier databases and quoted unit prices. Moving part of a supply chain changes quality assurance, tooling, logistics, working capital, engineering coordination, supplier development and the internal workload required to manage multiple locations.
The relevant question is: “Which part of the value chain should move, to which location, under what operating model, and does the risk-adjusted business case justify the transition?”
Begin with the reason for change
Resilience: reduce exposure to disruption, concentration or trade restrictions.
Market access: place production closer to Southeast Asian customers or local-content requirements.
Economics: improve total landed cost, lead times or working-capital performance.
Capacity: secure additional production capability unavailable from existing suppliers.
Strategic flexibility: create a qualified alternative before a disruption forces an urgent move.
Different objectives produce different country, supplier and ownership choices. A resilience-led dual-source model requires a different assessment from a full manufacturing relocation.
Compare total economics
The model should include quoted price, duties, freight, inventory, quality-control cost, scrap, tooling, supplier-development resources, travel, duplicate capacity, tax implications and the cost of management attention. Transition costs should be shown separately from steady-state economics, with realistic timing for qualification and ramp-up.
Test execution before announcing savings
Can the supplier meet the required process capability and traceability standards?
Which inputs or subcomponents would still depend on China?
Who owns tooling, intellectual property and corrective-action responsibility?
How long will customer approval, testing and qualification realistically take?
What internal engineering and quality resources are available for the transition?
Can volumes support the proposed economics without unrealistic growth assumptions?
Sequence the move
A staged transition can begin with lower-complexity components, secondary sourcing or final assembly, then expand as quality and economics are proven. Each stage should have measurable release criteria and an explicit stop condition.
AQG view
A China+1 decision is justified when it improves the resilience or economics of the operating model. The final recommendation should specify what moves, what remains, the preferred location and partner profile, the transition investment, the risks retained and the decision gates for implementation.
Southeast Asia briefing
Glen QokuFounder & Managing Partner
About AQG
Independent and based where the decisions play out.
AQG is an independent Southeast Asia commercial intelligence and execution partner based in Ho Chi Minh City. We help international management teams make important regional decisions and act on them.
The firm is led by Glen Qoku, whose background spans strategy consulting, M&A and cross-border commercial work across Europe, China and Southeast Asia. He is also a shareholder in an Italian family business and has faced these operating decisions from the client’s side of the table.
AQG works with three senior collaborators to keep the work fast and aligned. Market and sector specialists join when their knowledge improves the answer. AQG remains accountable throughout.
Common questions
Before you write to us.
Scope, involvement and commercial terms, answered plainly.
What type of company is AQG best suited to?
AQG works best with international companies, typically with €100 million to €500 million in revenue, facing a specific Southeast Asia challenge. This may involve weak performance, the wrong partners, unclear priorities or a planned expansion.
Can you work alongside our internal team?
Yes. AQG can lead a defined decision, work with the internal team or take responsibility for agreed local work. Legal, tax, financial and technical advisers remain responsible for their areas.
How are scope and fees agreed?
The question, work required, timetable and fee are agreed in writing before work begins. Standard fees are shown for each engagement. Partner Validation & Selection also offers the published appointment-linked fee.
Who will work on the engagement?
Every engagement has one accountable senior lead. Market, sector or functional specialists join only when they improve the work.
How much management time is required?
Management involvement is agreed upfront. It normally includes a starting discussion, access to relevant information, brief check-ins and a final decision meeting.
Can strategy and execution be commissioned separately?
Yes. AQG can support a defined decision, partner validation or ongoing local execution. If the work continues, the same senior lead stays involved and earlier work is not repeated.
Do you sign an NDA?
Yes, before any substantive discussion. Yours or AQG’s, whichever you prefer. AQG never names clients without written permission.
Get in touch
Discuss your Southeast Asia decision.
Tell us the decision, performance issue or objective. AQG will respond directly with whether we can help and a sensible first step.
Philippines
Cambodia
