A three-year-old partner programme can contain partners that have only been commercially ready for six months. Others may already be winning customers. Judging them all by the launch date gives a false picture of what they should be contributing.
When reviewing a programme, I want to know what has changed since the last review and if there are signs the business is becoming more repeatable. How much time has passed matters less than that.
Establish when partners were ready to sell
The starting point that matters is when a partner could actually go after business: the agreements were in place, people could explain the offer, and the vendor support they needed was there.
Readiness depends on the role. A reseller working alongside the vendor's sales and technical teams can contribute before becoming fully independent, as long as it has a credible way to find and develop opportunities.
Delays still count. If onboarding took up most of the first year, the review should find out why, and if the problem has been fixed. The time and money already spent do not disappear because the partner only recently became ready to sell.
Look beyond the pipeline total
A large pipeline number can make a programme look more developed than it actually is. When opportunities remain unqualified, the number creates expectations that neither Channel nor Sales can support. Channel comes under pressure to defend the number, while Sales is expected to deliver revenue from opportunities that were never actually qualified.
I use the first three to four weeks after opportunity creation as an initial qualification checkpoint, adjusted to the sales cycle: has the customer confirmed a real problem, and is there an agreed next step that moves things forward?
Stage movement should follow customer evidence. An opportunity waiting on a confirmed budget decision is different from one with no further contact. Where there's no progress, someone should explain why the opportunity still belongs in active pipeline. Repeatedly pushing back the close date is not enough.
Assess contribution across the portfolio
The 80/20 pattern is often called the Pareto principle: roughly 80% of results can come from 20% of the inputs. In a partner programme, that can mean a relatively small group of partners generates most of the revenue.
That does not automatically make the programme unhealthy. I see the 80/20 principle as a useful way to think about uneven contribution, not as a target every partner portfolio should match.
Established contributors deserve different expectations from partners developing real opportunities, or from those still building capability. Partners that repeatedly fail to follow through should not get the same support simply because they remain on the list.
This concentration also creates risk. The review should consider how exposed the programme would be if a major contributor left, and if developing partners have a real chance of generating revenue.
Include the vendor's own contribution
Direct sellers need to see how partners extend their reach and help them meet their targets, and compensation and management expectations need to support that. Paying sellers fully for partner business does not solve much if they are still judged more favourably for opportunities they originate and control themselves.
An account executive can reasonably lead the sales cycle, but partners still need to know what's in it for them before they invest. If a partner cannot tell if it may earn resale revenue, services revenue, or both, holding back on assigning people can be the sensible business call, not a sign they are not committed.
Before treating that hesitation as a sign the partner is not ready, check if the partner's role was made clear and the promised support was actually delivered.
Decide what deserves continued investment
Further investment should come with a clear milestone and a review date. For a recently enabled partner, that might mean qualifying its first customer opportunity. For an established partner, I expect repeatable business and a clear view of the cost of supporting it.
There is also a separate decision worth calling out. A company may choose to keep software sales direct and use partners mainly for services, even when a reseller programme is generating revenue. That is a change in route to market, and the business case for it should account for the revenue, coverage and customer access the existing model was contributing, as well as the commitments already made to partners. Closure alone does not prove the programme failed.
The outcome does not have to be all or nothing. Keep backing the partners that are producing results or making clear progress, and spend less time and money on those that are not.
Where another year is requested, the proposal should explain what will actually change. Repeating the previous plan with later dates is not a good enough reason.
Sources and inspiration
This article started with Martin Scholz's LinkedIn post about partner initiatives being stopped after twelve months. His discussion of milestones and leading indicators before closed-won revenue gave me a starting point for thinking about how programmes should be assessed.
I also drew on research by Martin Mocker and Ina M. Sebastian, published by MIT CISR, examining the organisational and commercial changes involved in selling with ecosystem partners. Their discussion of sales incentives shaped the section on the vendor's own contribution. I'm grateful to Germán Fernández for sharing that research on LinkedIn, which is how I came across it.
The practical observations and conclusions come from my own experience managing partner programmes.