Fifteen questions across five dimensions. Find out where your partner program is built for the reset, and where it is exposed.
15
Questions
5
Dimensions
~8 min
To complete
How to use this diagnostic
This diagnostic is drawn directly from the five partner strategy questions in The Partner Reset research. It is designed for partner leaders, CROs, and alliance executives who want to pressure-test their program against the structural changes the report identifies.
There are no trick questions. Answer based on what is actually true of your organization today, not what you are planning or aspiring to.
1
Partner Org Design
2
SI Control Points
3
Partner Segmentation
4
Attribution Governance
5
Program Redesign
The Diagnostic
0 of 15 questions answered
1
Dimension One
Partner Org Design
Are you investing in technical partner capacity or only program design? The research found that five of fifteen vendors have built technical partner-architect roles embedded inside engineering or solutions architecture. The other ten have not. This dimension assesses which side of that divide your organization is on.
Question 1 of 15
Does your partner function include a role that is structurally technical — one that co-builds with SI partners in live customer engagements, not just manages the program or the relationship?
Question 2 of 15
Where does your most senior partner-facing technical resource report?
Question 3 of 15
How does your organization evaluate the effectiveness of partner-facing technical investment?
2
Dimension Two
SI Control Points
Who controls architecture, methodology, learning loops, referrals, and co-sell priority? The research identifies a structural shift: vendor delivery entities are entering the market as a third option alongside direct delivery and partner certification. The question is not competition. It is control.
Question 4 of 15
Does your organization have an explicit point of view on how vendor delivery entities — including PE-backed services companies announced by Anthropic and OpenAI — affect your SI relationships and co-sell motion?
Question 5 of 15
When your top SI partners are engaged on a customer deal, who owns the architecture decision — the methodology for how your product is deployed?
Question 6 of 15
How does your organization currently capture and use learnings from SI-led customer deployments?
3
Dimension Three
Partner Segmentation
Are you investing in partners with current AI delivery capability? The research found that AI-native SI firms are delivering implementations more than 50% faster than traditional counterparts. Vendors that invest in partners without current AI delivery capability are backing a shrinking pool of customer-facing results.
Question 7 of 15
Does your partner segmentation model include explicit criteria for current AI delivery capability — not just certification status or historical revenue?
Question 8 of 15
How current is your view of your SI partners' internal restructuring — their workforce changes, delivery model shifts, and AI reskilling investment?
Question 9 of 15
If your top five SI partners were force-ranked today by current AI delivery capability — not historical revenue or certification count — would the ranking be meaningfully different?
4
Dimension Four
Attribution Governance
Do Sales, Finance, and Partnerships defend the same revenue definition? The research found that partner revenue accountability is now a baseline expectation, but attribution remains one of the most contested and unresolved governance questions in partner organizations.
Question 10 of 15
Is there a single, formally agreed definition of partner-influenced and partner-sourced revenue that Sales, Finance, and Partnerships all use?
Question 11 of 15
Does the CRO in your organization actively enforce partner attribution standards — including resolving disputes where Sales challenges partner-influenced credit?
Question 12 of 15
Does your partner contribution reporting extend beyond new logo and pipeline creation to include adoption, retention, and expansion driven through partner relationships?
5
Dimension Five
Program Redesign
Does your program reward outcome depth or activity volume? The research found that legacy program design, built around certification accumulation, MDF utilization, and new logo counts, is being replaced by outcome-based incentive structures. The gap between activity metrics and outcome metrics is now visible to buyers.
Question 13 of 15
Are your primary partner tier and incentive structures built around activity metrics (certifications, registered deals, MDF utilization) or outcome metrics (verified customer results, GRR, expansion revenue)?
Question 14 of 15
How does your program handle the shortened shelf life of AI certifications — the fact that product behavior, agent architecture, and implementation patterns are changing every quarter?
Question 15 of 15
Does the team managing your partner program currently have the capability to evaluate AI delivery competence in a partner, navigate SI co-opetition without escalation, and use AI-powered tools in their own daily execution?
Please answer all 15 questions before viewing your results.
Your responses are scored privately in your browser. Nothing is submitted or stored.