You don't have a design problem. You have five correct designs that don't agree.
Every business unit built a reasonable revenue system in isolation — a reasonable definition of qualified, a reasonable partner-sourced attribution model, a reasonable NRR calculation. There are five of them, and the board is handed a number that is really five numbers wearing one label.
- Team
- 6–12 person pod
- Term
- 6–18 months, often annual
- Accountability
- Portfolio-level KPIs
- Workstreams
- Sales · partner · customer · systems · change
What you're actually dealing with
Section 01Fragmentation, not absence
You already have a RevOps org — five to fifty people — split by function or region. The capability exists; the agreement doesn't.
Conflicting sources of truth
Multiple CRM instances, a PRM, a CS platform and a warehouse, each authoritative for somebody. The fix is a canonical data layer, not another tool swap.
Attribution is politically contested
Partner-sourced revenue is a multi-tier argument between resellers, distributors, GSIs and hyperscaler co-sell. Whoever owns the definition owns the credit.
Adoption fails, not design
The technical work is the easy half. Getting five VPs to adopt one shared definition without a mandate from above them is what decides the outcome.
The honest risk at this scale is political rather than technical: a correct design that nobody adopts. That's why change management is a named workstream with its own KPI, not an afterthought in the final phase.
What we deliver
Section 02A cross-functional pod on one scope
Sales ops, partner ops, customer ops, systems architecture and change management working a single roadmap, integrated with your internal RevOps staff rather than replacing them.
A canonical data and attribution layer
One definition of a qualified opportunity, one partner-sourced attribution model, one NRR calculation — implemented in the warehouse and pushed back to the systems each team already uses.
Governance that survives our exit
Steering committee cadence, deal desk and discount governance, field standards and a release process. The ownership model is rebuilt, not recommended.
Executive reporting that reconciles
One auditable number for the board, traceable to CRM, PRM and CS data rather than assembled in a deck the week before the meeting.
Engagements we run at this size
Section 03Partner program maturity redesign
Full tiering, MDF governance and co-sell redesign across regions.
3–9 months · 2–5 operatorsPRM or partner portal implementation
Multi-instance PRM consolidation or enterprise PRM rollout.
3–6 months · 2–4 operatorsAttribution model build
Cross-BU attribution standardisation and marketplace co-sell credit.
6–12 weeks · 1–3 operatorsHyperscaler co-sell enablement
AWS ACE, Azure and GCP marketplace integration and co-sell motion design.
4–8 months · 3–5 operatorsForecast methodology standardisation
Cross-BU and region rollup methodology with variance governance.
3–6 months · 2–4 operatorsTerritory and quota redesign
Multi-dimensional territory and quota model with capacity planning.
2–5 months · 2–4 operators