Services partner is different from reseller
The legal frame is closer to a professional services agreement than a sales agreement. Money flows from the customer to the SI (for services), not from the vendor to the SI (for resale). The vendor's economic stake is product subscription revenue, expansion, and retention — not direct revenue from the SI.
Two implications for the contract: First, IP ownership in customer deliverables defaults to the customer or the SI, not the vendor. Second, the vendor's authority over SI delivery quality is exercised through certification and tier policy, not through direct contractual control. Get this structure right and you have leverage. Get it wrong and you have a permission-slip agreement that does nothing.
Certification is the lever, not the agreement
The agreement enables; the certification policy controls. The SI Services pack includes a three-track certification curriculum (Foundation, Implementation, Specialist) and the agreement references that curriculum as a binding standard.
What this means in practice: an SI cannot move to Premier tier without a documented number of certified consultants. An uncertified consultant cannot deliver an implementation under the partner's brand. The agreement does not need to litigate quality — it just needs to point to the certification policy and let that policy do the work.
Outcome-based tiering (CSAT, time-to-value, retention)
Reseller tiers are based on revenue. SI tiers should be based on outcomes. The three metrics that matter:
- Customer Satisfaction (CSAT). Surveyed by the vendor at project close. Premier tier requires a trailing four-quarter CSAT above 4.5/5.0.
- Time to Value (TTV). Measured as customer's first material use of the product post-implementation. Premier tier requires TTV at or under the vendor's stated benchmark for the customer segment.
- 12-month Gross Retention. Of customers implemented by this partner, what percentage are still on the product 12 months later? Premier tier requires 90 percent or higher.
Tier on outcomes, not logos. This is the single most counter-intuitive but most important rule in SI program design.
Statement of work governance
Every SI engagement with a customer should pass through a Statement of Work (SOW) that conforms to a template the vendor has reviewed. The agreement should include a SOW Standards exhibit that names minimum scope clarity, named milestones, change-order process, and a clause referencing the vendor's right to audit the SOW (not the engagement).
The vendor is not party to the SOW — it is between the SI and the customer. But the vendor has a strong commercial interest in SOWs being well-formed because a bad SOW becomes a bad implementation becomes churn.
Big SI trap and how the agreement prevents it
The most expensive mistake in SI program design: signing Deloitte / Accenture / IBM in year one with no specific delivery commitment, treating the logo as the partnership. These firms will sign anything. They will deliver nothing in year one. The agreement should include a Joint Delivery Commitment exhibit naming: number of certified consultants by date, named first customer project, expected go-live date, and tier maintenance requirements.
Without these, the agreement is decoration. With them, the agreement filters serious SIs from logo-collectors. The SI Services pack includes the Joint Delivery Commitment template.