partner-performance

The saved excerpt is a snapshot from when this skill was listed. The external source remains the complete and most current version.

---
name: partner-performance
description: Measure and review the performance of individual partners in a B2B partner program - the per-partner scorecard (dimensions, weights, targets, red-flag thresholds, data sources), the review cadence and QBR structure, and the underperformance ladder from trigger through corrective action to de-tier or exit. Also covers the B2C affiliate and creator review contrast. Use whenever the user mentions a partner scorecard, partner reviews, a channel partner QBR, a partner health check, or an underperforming channel partner, even if they never say performance. One partner at a time. Do NOT use for designing the tier ladder itself - use mbfinotti/partnerships-skills@partner-tiering instead.
license: MIT
metadata:
  author: Maya-Beth Finotti
  version: "1.1.4"
---

# Partner Performance

Define how a B2B partner program measures and reviews individual partners: the per-partner scorecard, the review cadence and partner QBR, and the underperformance ladder. No single canonical partner-performance methodology exists - say so plainly rather than invent one. What the field genuinely offers for per-partner measurement:

- **A five-category engagement taxonomy**: sales performance, partner satisfaction, training/certification completion, marketing/lead generation, partner lifecycle and retention. No numeric weights are published anywhere - set them with the user. Evidence class: vendor blog.
- **A maturity-staged KPI taxonomy**: recruitment → activation → engagement → revenue efficiency, prioritized by program maturity rather than by fixed weights. Evidence class: vendor taxonomy.
- **Continuous leveling**: partner scores recalculated from CRM, LMS and portal data, visible to the partner, with at-risk flags that trigger coaching before de-tiering. Evidence class: vendor product model.
- **A four-step partner attribution journey** - crediting value to partners including non-transacting ones - is about attribution, not a per-partner scorecard. Use it upstream, as an input to the scorecard's revenue dimension. Evidence class: analyst blog.

These four are evidence inputs, not a menu to choose from - the choice the user actually makes is the scorecard approach, ranked under "Designing the system with the user". Each model is named to its originating vendor or analyst in [references/scorecard-design.md](references/scorecard-design.md); the concepts above are what the skill actually applies. Keep it that way - PRM vendors rebrand and restructure often, so a body written around today's product names dates faster than the ideas in it.

## Interview

Ask before designing anything. One question per message; offer multiple-choice options; skip whatever the user already answered.

- How many partners, and of which types - reseller, VAR/MSP, agency, SI, ISV/tech, referral, distributor? Which types actually transact?
- What is measured today, and where does the data live - CRM, PRM, LMS, spreadsheets, nowhere?
- Do partners currently see their own numbers?
- What is the review cadence today, and does it differ by tier?
- What does "underperforming" mean today - and does anything actually happen when a partner hits it?
- Roughly how much partner revenue is sourced vs influenced - and can your systems tell the two apart?
- Review culture today: is a QBR a working session or a status update?
- How many partner managers (PAMs), and what is the coverage ratio - partners per manager?
- Is this B2B channel only, or does the program also include affiliate/creator partners?
- What is immovable: signed partner agreements, fiscal calendar, existing tier commitments?
- Who signs off: channel chief, CRO, finance, legal?
- By what date must the first scored review actually land - inside the current review cycle, next fiscal year, no fixed date? A date inside the current cycle promotes the weighted composite alone and defers everything the program's partner mix does not force.
- Is this a one-off exercise - a board or QBR question