# Choosing partners with weighted criteria > Build a partner scorecard: set the direction and weight of each criterion before you score, back every score with evidence, then check the winner against the economics. - Course: [B2B Marketing and Sales: Win Your First Company Customers](https://productovi.com/courses/b2b-marketing-and-sales.md) - Module: Partners and channels - Lesson 26/32, ~22 min - Source: https://productovi.com/courses/b2b-marketing-and-sales/choosing-partners ## A tie at the top **Leo:** The training agency impressed me. Sixty corporate clients, a big sales team, and they already teach soft skills to HR departments. Can we just pick them? **Sofia:** I scored three candidates from 1 to 5 on fit, reach, trust, conflict risk and onboarding effort. Agency 5, 4, 3, 5, 3: total 20. Association 5, 5, 5, 1, 4: also 20. HR consultancy 14. **Alex Tutor:** Look at what you added up. A 5 on conflict risk means a lot of conflict. A 4 on onboarding effort means a lot of work. Your sum rewards both. **Alex Tutor:** A **partner scorecard** needs two decisions before any scoring: which way each criterion points, and how much each one matters. > **Exercise:** The agency and the association both total 20 on five criteria scored 1–5. What's the main problem with that comparison? ## Which way is better **Alex Tutor:** For fit, reach and trust, higher is better. For conflict risk and effort, lower is better. Flip those before adding: on a 1–5 scale, use 6 minus the score. **Marta:** The agency's 5 on conflict is real: they have their own English trainers and sell to the same HR managers we do. Flipped, that's a 1. **Sofia:** So with equal weights: agency 5, 4, 3, 1, 3, average 3.2. Association 5, 5, 5, 5, 2, average 4.4. The tie is gone. **Alex Tutor:** Write the direction next to each criterion on the sheet. Otherwise the next person to update it will make the same mistake. > **Exercise:** For which partner criteria is a **lower** raw score better, so they must be flipped before adding? Select all that apply. ## Weights before names **Alex Tutor:** Now weights. Set them from the gap you named last time, reach and trust, and set them before you look at the candidates. Otherwise it's tempting to tune weights until your favourite wins. **Alex Tutor:** Before Marta proposes numbers: when should the weights be set? > **Exercise:** When and from what should Teams set the weights of its partner criteria? **Marta:** My proposal: fit with our ideal client 0.3, reach 0.2, trust 0.2, conflict risk 0.2, onboarding effort 0.1. They add up to 1. **Sofia:** Association: 0.3 × 5 + 0.2 × 5 + 0.2 × 5 + 0.2 × 5 + 0.1 × 2 = 4.7. HR consultancy: 4.0. Agency: 3.4. The agency comes last of the three. **Leo:** Last? They have the biggest sales team of the three. **Alex Tutor:** And they'd use it to sell their own English as well as ours. The scorecard doesn't say «never»; it says the agency costs more risk than it brings, unless the terms change that. > **Exercise:** Weights: fit 0.3, reach 0.2, trust 0.2, conflict risk 0.2, effort 0.1 (conflict and effort flipped as 6 − score). The HR consultancy scores fit 4, reach 3, trust 4, conflict 1, effort 2. What is its weighted score? **Alex Tutor:** Now the agency, the one Leo likes. Work out its score yourself. > **Exercise:** The training agency scores fit 5, reach 4, trust 3, conflict risk 5, onboarding effort 3. Weights: fit 0.3, reach 0.2, trust 0.2, conflict 0.2, effort 0.1; conflict and effort are flipped as 6 − score. What is its weighted score? ## Evidence behind every score **Marta:** Where did your 5 for the association's trust come from? **Sofia:** Pavlo said Veloria bought its safety course on the association's recommendation. **Alex Tutor:** Good, that's evidence. Write it next to the score. Reach: how many of their members match our ideal client. Conflict: do they sell anything like ours. Effort: what they need from us to start. **Marta:** Counts and facts, not their client lists. We don't need anyone's personal data to score a partner. **Alex Tutor:** A score without evidence is an opinion with decimals. With evidence, anyone can challenge it, and that's the point. > **Exercise:** Match each criterion with the evidence that should back its score. ## Then check the money **Alex Tutor:** The scorecard ranks fit and risk. It doesn't say what a partner earns us. For the top names, estimate deals a year × lessons per deal × what we keep per lesson, minus the cost to set them up. **Sofia:** And if the ranking and the money disagree? **Alex Tutor:** Then look at why. Also nudge the weights a little: if a small change flips the winner, the two are close, and the evidence should decide. **Alex Tutor:** Suppose two candidates end up at 4.7 and 4.6. Is it decided? > **Exercise:** **True or false:** if moving 0.05 of weight from one criterion to another changes the winner, the scorecard has still settled the choice. **Marta:** Next time we'll put all five candidates and their numbers on one sheet. Today, get the method right. > **Exercise:** Put the steps for building a partner scorecard in order. ## Explaining it to Leo **Leo:** Fine, show me. But in plain words, please, not a table. **Alex Tutor:** Lead with the ranking, then the one reason that moved the agency down, then what you'll check next. Keep the numbers he can repeat. **Marta:** And be fair to the agency. Say what would change the picture for them. **Sofia:** Like dropping their own English courses, or a clear rule on who sells to which client? > **Exercise:** Write Leo a plain-words note (3–5 sentences): the ranking of the three candidates, why the agency dropped despite the tie, and what could change the picture for the agency. Facts: a raw sum gave the agency and the logistics association 20 each; with conflict risk and effort flipped and weights set first, the association scores 4.7, the HR consultancy 4.0 and the agency 3.4; the agency has the biggest sales team but sells its own English courses to the same HR managers as Teams. > **Key ideas** > > - Before scoring, set each criterion's direction: for conflict risk and effort, lower is better, so flip them (6 − score on a 1–5 scale). > - Set weights from the gap you need to fill, before you look at the candidates. Example: fit 0.3, reach 0.2, trust 0.2, conflict 0.2, effort 0.1. > - A raw sum tied the agency and the association at 20; with direction and weights the association scores 4.7, the HR consultancy 4.0, the agency 3.4. > - Back every score with evidence (counts and facts, not personal data). > - Then check the leaders' economics, and test whether a small change in weights flips the winner. **Alex Tutor:** Choosing is half of it. Next: the terms you sign, and the lines competition law doesn't let you cross. - Previous lesson: [Do we need partners?](https://productovi.com/courses/b2b-marketing-and-sales/do-we-need-partners.md) - Next lesson: [Partner terms and legal guardrails](https://productovi.com/courses/b2b-marketing-and-sales/terms-and-guardrails.md) --- Productovi Learning. Free, no sign-up needed to read.