Market development funds have long helped organizations invest in partner growth. But as partnerships become more complex, the way we design, use, and measure MDF needs to evolve. A well-funded program will only deliver value if partners can participate, both sides agree on the outcome, and the results inform the next investment.
I explored those questions with Angharad West of Kyndryl, Paige Johnson of Pega, and Jordan Tarantino of Samsara in our latest episode of The Voice of Partner Marketing. Our discussion moved through three connected pillars: making MDF more useful to partners, demonstrating its business impact, and making better decisions with data and AI. Here is what I heard from each of them and what partner marketing teams can put into practice.
Pillar 1 Modernizing MDF and increasing partner adoption
Angharad described how MDF has often been treated as funding for a near term activity rather than an investment in a strategic alliance. For her, the starting point is a shared outcome and a longer term plan that both organizations can build on. She also stressed that global and regional teams need to plan together: a global priority can set direction, but the right execution depends on the market.
Paige brought the discussion to the partner’s experience. She recommended one clear entry point into the MDF program, requirements explained before planning begins, and visibility into a request from submission through proof of performance. Necessary controls can remain in place without making partners navigate every internal step.
Jordan showed how to balance scale with local relevance. Her approach pairs global priorities with a menu of approved activities that regional teams can adapt to what works in their markets. Giving someone close to the region a clear role in approvals can help partners act on an opportunity while it is still timely.
Pillar 2 Strengthening accountability and demonstrating ROI
Paige made a strong case for agreeing on the business objective before choosing a tactic. Partners should establish responsibilities, measures of success, and the intended audience up front. She also called out a step that is easy to overlook: who owns lead follow up after an activity? A campaign needs a clear handoff to sales if the investment is going to produce a business outcome.
Jordan urged us to look beyond whether funds were spent or how many leads an activity generated. Depending on the goal, deal size, co-sell pipeline, sales cycle length, win rates, partner capability growth, and access to previously inactive accounts may provide a better picture of progress. A partner certification effort, for example, should be measured differently from a campaign designed to generate immediate demand.
Angharad added the time horizon that strategic alliances require. A successful event is visible right away; its contribution to pipeline or a growing partnership may take much longer to understand. She argued for planning and measurement that can follow progress over time, with room to adjust if the expected outcomes are not emerging.
Pillar 3 Building a more intelligent and agile MDF model
Jordan challenged a familiar allocation pattern: giving more MDF to the partners that already receive the most investment. She recommended looking at signals of growth and commitment, such as certification progress, deal registration momentum, market specialization, and account overlap. She also suggested making room to test opportunities with emerging partners and new go-to-market approaches.
Angharad emphasized what it takes to use those signals well. Marketing, alliances, and sales need information they can trust and a shared way to interpret it. Tools and systems can give teams a clearer view of what is working, but the relationships between the people making decisions remain essential.
Paige described practical uses for AI, including analyzing past MDF activity, finding patterns in partner data, and reducing administrative work. Her view was that people still need to set the strategy and build the partner relationship. AI can support those decisions when the underlying data is sound; it cannot take the place of the people making them.
The question I took from this conversation is simple: What are we trying to accomplish together, and how will we know whether we are making progress?
The answer should influence how a partner enters the program, what gets funded, who owns the next step, and how we decide to invest again. Thank you to Angharad, Paige, and Jordan for bringing such practical perspectives to The Voice of Partner Marketing.