The Process
Not dismantling what you have. Fixing what isn't working.
Channels-by-Design starts with what exists — the partners, the programs, the architecture — and works out precisely where it is performing, where it is not, and what needs to change.
01 — Diagnose
Map the current architecture and identify the root cause of underperformance — at the partner, product, coverage, and program level. The fix follows the diagnosis, not the other way around.
02 — Define
Specify what the market actually requires from the channel — buyer behavior, competitive dynamics, product mix, and the revenue target the architecture must be capable of producing.
03 — Design
Build the channel architecture — structure, partner roles, coverage model, incentive alignment, and program design — around what the market requires and what the number demands.
04 — Activate
Transition from current to new architecture with minimum disruption to active partner relationships and in-flight pipeline. Change managed, not announced.
05 — Measure
Track performance against the metrics the new architecture was designed to move — not the metrics that were easy to report under the old one.
Stay ahead of what's forming. Subscribe to Vaxa Insights — our look at the critical issues and emerging opportunities facing businesses today.
What We Design
The components of a channel architecture.
Channel Structure and Coverage
Which markets are served directly, which through partners, which through distributors, and which require a hybrid approach. Most underperforming channels have the wrong coverage model for the market they are serving.
Pipeline Architecture
The model that connects the revenue target to the partner base — by partner type, deal stage, and close rate. Who identifies, who owns, who closes, and whether the current base can produce the number being chased.
Incentive and Compensation
Channel compensation is the most direct signal a vendor sends about what it values. Misaligned compensation produces misaligned behavior. We design the structure that produces the behavior the channel requires.
Partner Profile and Qualification
The wrong partners in a well-designed channel underperform just as reliably as the right partners in a poorly designed one. We define the profile the architecture requires and the criteria to enforce it.
Enablement and Support Model
Partners sell what they can sell confidently and profitably. The enablement model has to match the channel architecture and the partner's actual capacity to absorb it — not what the previous program assumed.
Performance and Governance
A channel architecture without performance governance degrades over time. We design the KPI framework, review cadence, and governance model that keeps the channel performing against intent.
The Diagnosis
Most major channel issue are strategy problems in disguise.
The organizations that reach us have usually tried everything on the execution side — new leadership, new incentives, new partners, new training. When none of it moves the number, the architecture is the issue.
A channel built for a market that has evolved
The channel was designed at a point in time — for a specific buyer profile, a specific competitive landscape, a specific product mix. Markets move. The channel stays the same. The performance gap is the result.
A pipeline that can't produce the number being chased
The revenue target exists. The partner base exists. The model that connects them — who identifies, who owns, who closes, and whether you have enough of each — usually doesn't. We build it.
An age old issue: Direct and indirect conflict
When direct sales teams see partners as competition for quota, the channel loses before the customer conversation starts. We design the coverage model and rules of engagement that stop the conflict costing revenue.
The wrong partner mix for the market being served
Not enough partners who can identify deals. Too many who can close but can't find them. The architecture determines which types you need and how many — before a single recruitment conversation happens.