Two kinds of subcontracting, one kind of mess
The vendor subcontracts to you. Another partner subcontracts to you. Both have the same shape, and no tool tracks either one.
Subcontracting in the partner channel runs in two directions, and most firms are doing both without a system for either.
Pattern one: the vendor subcontracts to you. monday.com runs a Services Subcontracting Program. The vendor owns the customer, assigns you the delivery work, pays you an hourly rate, and you invoice monthly in arrears. Thousands of partners operate this way.
Pattern two: another partner subcontracts to you. Partner A sells the deal, Partner B delivers it. Profit splits live in a SOW. Payment timing is tied to whenever Partner A collects from the client. A non-circumvention clause quietly runs for twenty-four months.
Different parties, identical shape. Someone else owns the contract. You own the delivery. The economics live in a document, and the document is the only record.
What has to be tracked
- Who owns the client relationship, and what you are and are not allowed to do
- The split, and the basis it is calculated on
- Payment timing, which depends on upstream collection you do not control
- The non-circumvention window, and when it closes
- Itemized cost detail, because the other party can ask for it once a year
Where it lives today
In a SOW nobody reopened, and in the memory of whoever signed it. When that person is busy or gone, the firm is operating on trust and a PDF.
As the channel matures and roll-ups emerge, partner-to-partner subcontracting is becoming more common, not less. PartnerView treats both directions as first-class: the engagement, the SOW terms, the split, the payment backstop, the countdown clock. The PDF stops being the system of record.