January. The executive committee of a software vendor meets to set the course for the year. The target is ambitious: a third of growth must come from partners. The network counts some sixty integrators and resellers, half of them signed in the last eighteen months. A partner programme exists, a portal has been launched, two Channel Managers have been hired. Everything seems in place.
Twelve months later, the picture is more nuanced. A dozen partners generate most of the indirect revenue. Around twenty have not closed a single deal. The Channel Managers spend their weeks firefighting, and nobody can really say whether the investment paid off.
We have seen this scenario repeat itself in many forms, with software vendors, IT services firms, manufacturers and technology companies of every size. It illustrates a paradox that more than twenty years of engagements keep confirming.
A paradox seen across several hundred engagements
Companies invest considerable resources to recruit new partners, but very few genuinely exploit the potential of their ecosystem. Partners are recruited, trained, equipped… and then everyone hopes revenue will follow naturally.
In reality, results often remain far below ambitions. And the temptation is strong to look for someone to blame: partners who are “not committed enough”, an offer that is “not mature enough”, a market that is “harder than expected”.
Neither the partners nor the products: what is missing is a framework
The problem generally lies neither with the partners nor with the products. What is missing is a framework linking strategy, prioritisation, engagement, execution and performance.
Back to our software vendor. Its partners were not bad. They were recruited as opportunities arose, without anyone asking whether they covered the right markets, whether they had the skills to sell the offer, or what exactly the vendor expected of them. Each received the same starter kit and the same attention, whatever their potential. No shared objective was ever formalised. The network grew, but it was never built.
That is precisely what Channel Performance Management (CPM) is for: a reference framework for steering indirect business with the same rigour applied to customers and the company’s other strategic assets.
“The performance of a partner network does not depend on the number of partners recruited, but on the way they are selected, developed and steered.”
A framework is not enough: you still have to know how to steer
A framework says what to steer. It does not say how. That is the role of the PAD Method®, which identifies and models the best practices of indirect development.
These best practices are organised into 38 performance levers, from vision to profitability, from go-to-market to recruitment, from onboarding to business plans, from mapping to KPI consolidation. Each lever answers a concrete question and can be used on its own: how to choose which partners to recruit, how to get their first hundred days right, how to build a business plan that genuinely commits both sides, how to know where to invest.
For our software vendor, this would have changed the order of decisions. Before signing the thirtieth partner, it would have defined the markets to cover and the profile of the ideal partner. Before handing the same kit to everyone, it would have mapped its network to identify the ten partners who deserved stronger support. Before discovering the missing revenue at year-end, it would have signed business plans with its strategic partners and tracked their execution every quarter.
Industrialising best practices
A method that lives in spreadsheets and in a few people’s memories always ends up eroding. A Channel Manager changes jobs, and their good practices leave with them. A quarterly review is postponed, then forgotten.
These best practices can now be industrialised thanks to ChannelPerf, the technology platform of CPM. It puts them to work every day, measures their results and improves them continuously, for Channel Managers and executive management alike.
Three building blocks, one approach
It is the complementarity of the three that gives this approach its full strength: CPM defines the framework, the PAD Method® models the best practices, ChannelPerf puts them to work.
Remove one of the three and the whole structure wobbles:
- A framework without a method remains an intention. Everyone agrees the network matters, but nobody knows where to start.
- A method without a tool depends on individuals. It works as long as the right people are there, and stops when they leave.
- A tool without a method produces dashboards nobody knows how to read. A lot gets measured, little gets decided.
Recruit more, or steer better?
Faced with disappointing results, the first reflex is often to recruit more partners. It is rarely the right answer. Adding partners to an unmanaged network adds workload without adding performance.
We are convinced of it: the companies that succeed in their partner strategy are not those that recruit the most partners, but those that best select, align, engage, develop and steer their performance.
Turning the network into a lasting competitive advantage
A well-steered partner network is one of the hardest assets for a competitor to copy. A product can be replicated, a price can be matched. An ecosystem of committed, skilled and profitable partners takes years to build, not quarters.
That is what is at stake in making indirect business a genuine strategic growth lever, rather than a secondary sales channel watched from a distance.
“A high-performing partner network never results from chance. It is always the fruit of a vision, a method and rigorous steering. It is built. It is organised. It is engaged. It is developed. It is steered.”
— René Causse, founder of PAD Consulting