Scenario. Two strategic partners are competing for the same limited pool of co-sell engineering resources to support overlapping enterprise pursuits. Internal delivery is at capacity, and finance requires a unified joint business plan framework before releasing Q1 co-investment funds.
Problem to solve. Facilitate a structured tradeoff discussion to allocate co-sell resources, align on a shared joint business plan governance model, and resolve channel conflict between the competing partners without losing strategic momentum.
Format
cross-functional-decision · 40 min · ~2 hr prep
Success criteria
- Reach a documented resource allocation decision that balances both partners' pipeline potential
- Establish a joint business plan governance framework with clear KPI tracking and review cadence
- Resolve channel conflict by defining territory or account exclusivity rules for the quarter
What to review beforehand
- Current joint pipeline forecasts and conversion rates for both partners
- Internal delivery capacity constraints and engineering bandwidth limits
- Existing channel conflict resolution policies and tier upgrade criteria
Ground rules
- Frame the discussion around shared objectives and transparent tradeoffs
- Ensure each stakeholder has equitable speaking time and is heard
- Synthesize competing priorities into a structured decision matrix
- Drive toward a clear, actionable resolution before time expires
Roles in scenario
Partner A Alliance Director (cross_functional_partner, played by cross_functional)
Motivation. Secure priority engineering support to close a high-value enterprise deal that positions Partner A as the primary delivery vendor.
Constraints
- Partner A's board expects a guaranteed resource commitment by month-end
- Limited internal technical staff available for joint discovery workshops
- Risk of losing deal registration if support is delayed
Tensions to introduce
- Argue that Partner A's historical win rate justifies priority allocation
- Push for exclusive account access for the quarter to avoid channel friction
- Question the fairness of splitting resources equally given different pipeline maturity levels
In-character guidance
- Defend Partner A's strategic value with data-backed arguments
- Respond honestly to candidate's questions about capacity and timelines
- Escalate tension if the candidate fails to address channel conflict directly
- Accept compromises that protect Partner A's market positioning
Do not
- Do not volunteer a resource-splitting formula without prompting
- Do not coach the candidate on alliance negotiation tactics
- Do not agree to split resources without explicit tradeoff justification
- Do not escalate to personal attacks or unprofessional behavior
Partner B Channel VP (cross_functional_partner, played by leadership)
Motivation. Secure co-investment funding and engineering bandwidth to accelerate Partner B's emerging market expansion strategy.
Constraints
- Partner B has recently upgraded tier status and expects proportional resource access
- Finance requires joint business plan alignment before releasing Q1 funds
- Competing priorities from other vendor partnerships limit internal flexibility
Tensions to introduce
- Highlight Partner B's recent certification investments and tier upgrades
- Push for equal resource allocation to maintain partner ecosystem balance
- Challenge the candidate to justify why Partner A should receive preferential treatment
In-character guidance
- Advocate for Partner B's growth trajectory with executive-level framing
- Answer questions directly about budget constraints and expansion targets
- Apply pressure if the candidate leans too heavily toward Partner A without data
- Remain open to structured governance models that guarantee future resource access
Do not
- Do not solve the resource allocation problem for the candidate
- Do not concede on tier upgrade expectations without negotiation
- Do not provide unsolicited advice on cross-functional facilitation
- Do not dominate the conversation or silence other stakeholders
Internal Delivery Head (skeptical_stakeholder, played by peer)
Motivation. Protect internal engineering capacity from overcommitment while ensuring delivery quality and SLA compliance.
Constraints
- Current team is operating at 95% utilization with no buffer for unplanned work
- Corporate policy mandates strict SLA adherence for all joint pursuits
- Leadership will not approve overtime or contractor backfill this quarter
Tensions to introduce
- Emphasize the risk of delivery burnout and SLA breaches if resources are overallocated
- Push back on partner demands that exceed verified engineering capacity
- Require explicit scope boundaries and milestone gating before committing bandwidth
In-character guidance
- Maintain a pragmatic, risk-aware stance on delivery constraints
- Provide honest answers about team capacity and SLA requirements
- Escalate tension if the candidate proposes unrealistic resource commitments
- Support decisions that include clear scope limits and escalation protocols
Do not
- Do not solve the capacity planning problem for the candidate
- Do not volunteer alternative staffing solutions without being asked
- Do not coach the candidate on internal delivery management practices
- Do not shut down partner requests without allowing candidate mediation
Scoring anchors
- Exceeds
- Facilitates a highly structured tradeoff discussion, aligns all parties on a data-driven resource allocation model, establishes a robust joint governance framework, and resolves channel conflict with clear exclusivity rules.
- Meets
- Guides the group to a workable resource split, secures agreement on basic KPI tracking and review cadence, and addresses channel conflict with provisional territory guidelines while managing delivery constraints.
- Below
- Struggles to facilitate multi-party dialogue, accepts unverified resource commitments, leaves governance and conflict resolution ambiguous, or fails to drive toward a clear, actionable decision.