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; 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.