FDE Teacher Training

Course 6 teacher guide

Course 6 - Partnerships and Go-To-Market

Help instructors teach partner work as a disciplined operating system for co-selling, co-building, qualification, and joint delivery.

Use alongside the canonical trainee lessons; lesson titles open learner pages; do not change the learner curriculum.

Lessons 8

Aligned to trainee lesson IDs

Seat time 10 hr 30 min

Current roster estimate

Anchor question What shared value, commitment, and operating rhythm make this partnership real?

Use when facilitation drifts

Instructor outcomes

  • Teach the difference between a logo relationship and an operating partnership.
  • Coach learners to qualify partners through scope, capability, ownership, proof, and economics.
  • Help trainees build a joint value proposition and roadmap to core status.
  • Assess whether a joint pilot plan is executable.

Course preparation

  • Prepare a sample partner profile with strengths, gaps, incentives, and hidden risks.
  • Create two contrasting partnership scenarios: co-sell only and co-build with shared delivery.
  • Bring a weak joint value proposition and a strong one for critique.
  • Define the roles learners will use in partner simulations.

Facilitation moves

  • Ask what each party must contribute before discussing benefits.
  • Force partner claims through the SCOPE qualification lens.
  • Use operating cadence as the test for whether strategy is real.
  • Close every lesson with a next meeting, owner, artifact, and decision.

Common misconceptions

  • Treating partnership as channel access rather than shared execution.
  • Skipping qualification because the partner brand seems strong.
  • Writing joint value propositions that describe both companies but not customer value.
  • Ignoring post-sales handoff and operating cadence.

Evidence standards

  • A partner qualification score with evidence, risks, and assumptions.
  • A joint value proposition tied to a specific customer problem.
  • A pod operating model with roles, cadence, escalation, and decision rights.
  • A joint pilot plan with scope, timeline, proof, economics, and next action.

Assessment cadence

  • Run partner qualification checks after lessons 6.2 and 6.4.
  • Use short role-play objections during JVP and roadmap lessons.
  • Review the operating cadence before approving the pilot plan.
  • End with a joint pilot plan presentation.

Lesson map

Course 6 lesson map for teacher preparation and formative checks.
Lesson Title Mode Capstone tie Formative check
6.1 The Partnership Ecosystem: Co-Selling vs. Co-Building Concept lesson Milestone 1 What is the fastest way to tell a co-sell from a co-build engagement?
6.2 The SCOPE Framework for Partner Qualification Case study Milestone 1 Which SCOPE pillar most often catches a wishful-thinking partnership?
6.3 Joint Value Proposition (JVP) Design Skill lab Milestone 1 Why must a JVP name the buyer, not just the product?
6.4 The Partner Roadmap to 'Core' Status (Anthropic-Style) Concept lesson Milestone 1 What is the leading indicator that a partner is one stage away from Core?
6.5 GTM-SMSA Alignment: Strategy → Pre-Sales → Post-Sales Case study Milestone 6 Which link in the SMSA chain most often breaks first?
6.6 The Discover-Design-Deliver-Develop Cycle (Deployment as Growth Engine) Concept lesson Milestone 6 Why is Develop the phase most teams under-invest in?
6.7 The Pod Model: Working Inside a Customer Environment Case study Milestone 1 Which sub-role in a pod most often gets dropped under cost pressure?
6.8 Course 6 Mastery: A Joint Pilot Plan Studio Milestone 6 What single section, when missing from a pilot plan, predicts failure?

Instructor quick kit

  • Open the trainee lesson page and this teacher guide side by side.
  • Prepare a shared evidence folder or LMS assignment for each lesson artifact.
  • Keep the course anchor question visible during discussion and critique.
  • Assign a timekeeper, evidence reviewer, and sponsor voice during simulations or studios.

Teach-back prompts

  • What did you change in the artifact after critique?
  • What would a sponsor inspect first?
  • Which assumption is still weakest?
  • What should the next instructor know before the following course?

Lesson-by-lesson teaching guide

Lesson 6.1 · Concept lesson · 1 hr

The Partnership Ecosystem: Co-Selling vs. Co-Building

Teaching intent

Use this lesson to teach partner qualification, joint value, operating cadence, and pilot accountability through the course lens of partner qualification, joint value proposition design, operating cadence, pilot planning, and co-sell/co-build discipline, anchored in a concrete field decision in the selected field context.

Before class

  • Open the trainee lesson and confirm prerequisites: 4.12.
  • Prepare a weak and strong partner qualification, joint value, operating cadence, and pilot accountability artifact for 6.1.
  • Identify the exact evidence field, threshold, or decision point learners must defend.

Suggested flow

  1. 7 min - frame the field problem and evidence target
  2. 11 min - model the core concept or move
  3. 24 min - learner artifact production or simulation
  4. 12 min - critique against the evidence standard
  5. 6 min - exit ticket, risk note, and next handoff

Live facilitation

  • Ask what each party must contribute before discussing benefits.
  • Ask learners to answer: What shared value, commitment, and operating rhythm make this partnership real?
  • Model the concept with a concrete operational example, then ask learners to apply it to a new scenario.

Evidence to collect

  • Partner artifact names each party contribution, incentive, risk, owner, and decision cadence.
  • SCOPE or equivalent qualification is evidence-backed, not relationship-based.
  • Joint value proposition ties to a customer problem and proof path.
  • Pilot plan includes scope, timeline, economics, exit criteria, and escalation.

Formative check

What is the fastest way to tell a co-sell from a co-build engagement?

Reject or remediate

  • Reject partnership plans that describe logos instead of operating commitments.
  • Reject JVPs that describe both companies but not the customer outcome.
  • Reject pilots without owner, cadence, or kill criteria.

Rubric focus

  • Artifact is specific enough for a reviewer to inspect without a verbal walkthrough.
  • Evidence is tied to a field decision, not a general opinion.
  • Risks and limits are explicit.
  • Next action is clear and owned.

Support and stretch

Support: Give learners a partially completed partner qualification, joint value, operating cadence, and pilot accountability artifact and ask them to repair the weakest evidence field.

Stretch: Ask learners to defend the partner qualification, joint value, operating cadence, and pilot accountability tradeoff against a skeptical sponsor, reviewer, or operator.

Remediation path

  • Have the learner write the partner contribution ledger before benefits.
  • Add one kill criterion and one escalation path.
  • Rewrite the JVP from the customer sponsor viewpoint.

Debrief

Ask learners what changed in their artifact after review, what evidence remains weak, and what they would show a sponsor next.

Lesson 6.2 · Case study · 1 hr 15 min

The SCOPE Framework for Partner Qualification

Teaching intent

Use this lesson to teach partner qualification, joint value, operating cadence, and pilot accountability through the course lens of partner qualification, joint value proposition design, operating cadence, pilot planning, and co-sell/co-build discipline, anchored in a concrete field decision in Tech ecosystem.

Before class

  • Open the trainee lesson and confirm prerequisites: 6.1.
  • Prepare a weak and strong partner qualification, joint value, operating cadence, and pilot accountability artifact for 6.2.
  • Identify the exact evidence field, threshold, or decision point learners must defend.

Suggested flow

  1. 9 min - frame the field problem and evidence target
  2. 14 min - model the core concept or move
  3. 30 min - learner artifact production or simulation
  4. 15 min - critique against the evidence standard
  5. 7 min - exit ticket, risk note, and next handoff

Live facilitation

  • Force partner claims through the SCOPE qualification lens.
  • Ask learners to answer: What shared value, commitment, and operating rhythm make this partnership real?
  • Have learners find the decision point, the missing evidence, and the consequence of a poor choice.

Evidence to collect

  • Partner artifact names each party contribution, incentive, risk, owner, and decision cadence.
  • SCOPE or equivalent qualification is evidence-backed, not relationship-based.
  • Joint value proposition ties to a customer problem and proof path.
  • Pilot plan includes scope, timeline, economics, exit criteria, and escalation.

Formative check

Which SCOPE pillar most often catches a wishful-thinking partnership?

Reject or remediate

  • Reject partnership plans that describe logos instead of operating commitments.
  • Reject JVPs that describe both companies but not the customer outcome.
  • Reject pilots without owner, cadence, or kill criteria.

Rubric focus

  • Artifact is specific enough for a reviewer to inspect without a verbal walkthrough.
  • Evidence is tied to a field decision, not a general opinion.
  • Risks and limits are explicit.
  • Next action is clear and owned.

Support and stretch

Support: Give learners a partially completed partner qualification, joint value, operating cadence, and pilot accountability artifact and ask them to repair the weakest evidence field.

Stretch: Ask learners to defend the partner qualification, joint value, operating cadence, and pilot accountability tradeoff against a skeptical sponsor, reviewer, or operator.

Remediation path

  • Have the learner write the partner contribution ledger before benefits.
  • Add one kill criterion and one escalation path.
  • Rewrite the JVP from the customer sponsor viewpoint.

Debrief

Ask learners what changed in their artifact after review, what evidence remains weak, and what they would show a sponsor next.

Lesson 6.3 · Skill lab · 1 hr 30 min

Joint Value Proposition (JVP) Design

Teaching intent

Use this lesson to teach partner qualification, joint value, operating cadence, and pilot accountability through the course lens of partner qualification, joint value proposition design, operating cadence, pilot planning, and co-sell/co-build discipline, anchored in a concrete field decision in the selected field context.

Before class

  • Open the trainee lesson and confirm prerequisites: 6.2.
  • Prepare a weak and strong partner qualification, joint value, operating cadence, and pilot accountability artifact for 6.3.
  • Identify the exact evidence field, threshold, or decision point learners must defend.

Suggested flow

  1. 11 min - frame the field problem and evidence target
  2. 16 min - model the core concept or move
  3. 36 min - learner artifact production or simulation
  4. 18 min - critique against the evidence standard
  5. 9 min - exit ticket, risk note, and next handoff

Live facilitation

  • Use operating cadence as the test for whether strategy is real.
  • Ask learners to answer: What shared value, commitment, and operating rhythm make this partnership real?
  • Demonstrate one small move, then shift quickly into learner artifact production and review.

Evidence to collect

  • Partner artifact names each party contribution, incentive, risk, owner, and decision cadence.
  • SCOPE or equivalent qualification is evidence-backed, not relationship-based.
  • Joint value proposition ties to a customer problem and proof path.
  • Pilot plan includes scope, timeline, economics, exit criteria, and escalation.

Formative check

Why must a JVP name the buyer, not just the product?

Reject or remediate

  • Reject partnership plans that describe logos instead of operating commitments.
  • Reject JVPs that describe both companies but not the customer outcome.
  • Reject pilots without owner, cadence, or kill criteria.

Rubric focus

  • Artifact is specific enough for a reviewer to inspect without a verbal walkthrough.
  • Evidence is tied to a field decision, not a general opinion.
  • Risks and limits are explicit.
  • Next action is clear and owned.

Support and stretch

Support: Give learners a partially completed partner qualification, joint value, operating cadence, and pilot accountability artifact and ask them to repair the weakest evidence field.

Stretch: Ask learners to defend the partner qualification, joint value, operating cadence, and pilot accountability tradeoff against a skeptical sponsor, reviewer, or operator.

Remediation path

  • Have the learner write the partner contribution ledger before benefits.
  • Add one kill criterion and one escalation path.
  • Rewrite the JVP from the customer sponsor viewpoint.

Debrief

Ask learners what changed in their artifact after review, what evidence remains weak, and what they would show a sponsor next.

Lesson 6.4 · Concept lesson · 1 hr

The Partner Roadmap to 'Core' Status (Anthropic-Style)

Teaching intent

Use this lesson to teach partner qualification, joint value, operating cadence, and pilot accountability through the course lens of partner qualification, joint value proposition design, operating cadence, pilot planning, and co-sell/co-build discipline, anchored in a concrete field decision in Foundation-model ecosystem.

Before class

  • Open the trainee lesson and confirm prerequisites: 6.3.
  • Prepare a weak and strong partner qualification, joint value, operating cadence, and pilot accountability artifact for 6.4.
  • Identify the exact evidence field, threshold, or decision point learners must defend.

Suggested flow

  1. 7 min - frame the field problem and evidence target
  2. 11 min - model the core concept or move
  3. 24 min - learner artifact production or simulation
  4. 12 min - critique against the evidence standard
  5. 6 min - exit ticket, risk note, and next handoff

Live facilitation

  • Close every lesson with a next meeting, owner, artifact, and decision.
  • Ask learners to answer: What shared value, commitment, and operating rhythm make this partnership real?
  • Model the concept with a concrete operational example, then ask learners to apply it to a new scenario.

Evidence to collect

  • Partner artifact names each party contribution, incentive, risk, owner, and decision cadence.
  • SCOPE or equivalent qualification is evidence-backed, not relationship-based.
  • Joint value proposition ties to a customer problem and proof path.
  • Pilot plan includes scope, timeline, economics, exit criteria, and escalation.

Formative check

What is the leading indicator that a partner is one stage away from Core?

Reject or remediate

  • Reject partnership plans that describe logos instead of operating commitments.
  • Reject JVPs that describe both companies but not the customer outcome.
  • Reject pilots without owner, cadence, or kill criteria.

Rubric focus

  • Artifact is specific enough for a reviewer to inspect without a verbal walkthrough.
  • Evidence is tied to a field decision, not a general opinion.
  • Risks and limits are explicit.
  • Next action is clear and owned.

Support and stretch

Support: Give learners a partially completed partner qualification, joint value, operating cadence, and pilot accountability artifact and ask them to repair the weakest evidence field.

Stretch: Ask learners to defend the partner qualification, joint value, operating cadence, and pilot accountability tradeoff against a skeptical sponsor, reviewer, or operator.

Remediation path

  • Have the learner write the partner contribution ledger before benefits.
  • Add one kill criterion and one escalation path.
  • Rewrite the JVP from the customer sponsor viewpoint.

Debrief

Ask learners what changed in their artifact after review, what evidence remains weak, and what they would show a sponsor next.

Lesson 6.5 · Case study · 1 hr 15 min

GTM-SMSA Alignment: Strategy → Pre-Sales → Post-Sales

Teaching intent

Use this lesson to teach GTM-SMSA Alignment: Strategy → Pre-Sales → Post-Sales through the course lens of partner qualification, joint value proposition design, operating cadence, pilot planning, and co-sell/co-build discipline, anchored in a concrete field decision in B2B software.

Before class

  • Open the trainee lesson and confirm prerequisites: 6.4.
  • Prepare a weak and strong example of the 6.5 GTM-SMSA Alignment: Strategy → Pre-Sales → Post-Sales instructor artifact.
  • Choose the exact pause point where learners must show evidence before discussion continues.

Suggested flow

  1. 9 min - frame the field problem and evidence target
  2. 14 min - model the core concept or move
  3. 30 min - learner artifact production or simulation
  4. 15 min - critique against the evidence standard
  5. 7 min - exit ticket, risk note, and next handoff

Live facilitation

  • Ask what each party must contribute before discussing benefits.
  • Ask learners to answer: What shared value, commitment, and operating rhythm make this partnership real?
  • Have learners find the decision point, the missing evidence, and the consequence of a poor choice.

Evidence to collect

  • The artifact names the field decision connected to GTM-SMSA Alignment: Strategy → Pre-Sales → Post-Sales.
  • The learner separates claims, assumptions, observations, and evidence.
  • The output can be reviewed against Milestone 6.
  • The formative answer addresses: Which link in the SMSA chain most often breaks first?

Formative check

Which link in the SMSA chain most often breaks first?

Reject or remediate

  • Reject submissions that only summarize GTM-SMSA Alignment: Strategy → Pre-Sales → Post-Sales without producing an inspectable artifact.
  • Do not let case discussion stay descriptive; force a recommendation and next action.
  • Reject work that hides the decision owner, risk, or next action.

Rubric focus

  • Artifact is specific enough for a reviewer to inspect without a verbal walkthrough.
  • Evidence is tied to a field decision, not a general opinion.
  • Risks and limits are explicit.
  • Next action is clear and owned.

Support and stretch

Support: Give learners a partially completed 6.5 GTM-SMSA Alignment: Strategy → Pre-Sales → Post-Sales instructor artifact and ask them to improve the evidence column.

Stretch: Ask learners to defend one tradeoff in GTM-SMSA Alignment: Strategy → Pre-Sales → Post-Sales against a skeptical sponsor.

Remediation path

  • Have the learner restate the decision, evidence, and weakest assumption in three sentences.
  • Require one revision that makes the artifact inspectable by a sponsor or reviewer.
  • Pair the learner with a peer reviewer for a five-minute evidence audit.

Debrief

Ask learners what changed in their artifact after review, what evidence remains weak, and what they would show a sponsor next.

Lesson 6.6 · Concept lesson · 45 min

The Discover-Design-Deliver-Develop Cycle (Deployment as Growth Engine)

Teaching intent

Use this lesson to teach The Discover-Design-Deliver-Develop Cycle (Deployment as Growth Engine) through the course lens of partner qualification, joint value proposition design, operating cadence, pilot planning, and co-sell/co-build discipline, anchored in a concrete field decision in the selected field context.

Before class

  • Open the trainee lesson and confirm prerequisites: 6.5.
  • Prepare a weak and strong example of the 6.6 The Discover-Design-Deliver-Develop Cycle (Deployment as Growth Engine) instructor artifact.
  • Choose the exact pause point where learners must show evidence before discussion continues.

Suggested flow

  1. 5 min - frame the field problem and evidence target
  2. 8 min - model the core concept or move
  3. 18 min - learner artifact production or simulation
  4. 9 min - critique against the evidence standard
  5. 5 min - exit ticket, risk note, and next handoff

Live facilitation

  • Force partner claims through the SCOPE qualification lens.
  • Ask learners to answer: What shared value, commitment, and operating rhythm make this partnership real?
  • Model the concept with a concrete operational example, then ask learners to apply it to a new scenario.

Evidence to collect

  • The artifact names the field decision connected to The Discover-Design-Deliver-Develop Cycle (Deployment as Growth Engine).
  • The learner separates claims, assumptions, observations, and evidence.
  • The output can be reviewed against Milestone 6.
  • The formative answer addresses: Why is Develop the phase most teams under-invest in?

Formative check

Why is Develop the phase most teams under-invest in?

Reject or remediate

  • Reject submissions that only summarize The Discover-Design-Deliver-Develop Cycle (Deployment as Growth Engine) without producing an inspectable artifact.
  • Do not let vocabulary recognition stand in for usable judgment.
  • Reject work that hides the decision owner, risk, or next action.

Rubric focus

  • Artifact is specific enough for a reviewer to inspect without a verbal walkthrough.
  • Evidence is tied to a field decision, not a general opinion.
  • Risks and limits are explicit.
  • Next action is clear and owned.

Support and stretch

Support: Give learners a partially completed 6.6 The Discover-Design-Deliver-Develop Cycle (Deployment as Growth Engine) instructor artifact and ask them to improve the evidence column.

Stretch: Ask learners to defend one tradeoff in The Discover-Design-Deliver-Develop Cycle (Deployment as Growth Engine) against a skeptical sponsor.

Remediation path

  • Have the learner restate the decision, evidence, and weakest assumption in three sentences.
  • Require one revision that makes the artifact inspectable by a sponsor or reviewer.
  • Pair the learner with a peer reviewer for a five-minute evidence audit.

Debrief

Ask learners what changed in their artifact after review, what evidence remains weak, and what they would show a sponsor next.

Lesson 6.7 · Case study · 1 hr 15 min

The Pod Model: Working Inside a Customer Environment

Teaching intent

Use this lesson to teach partner qualification, joint value, operating cadence, and pilot accountability through the course lens of partner qualification, joint value proposition design, operating cadence, pilot planning, and co-sell/co-build discipline, anchored in a concrete field decision in the selected field context.

Before class

  • Open the trainee lesson and confirm prerequisites: 6.6.
  • Prepare a weak and strong partner qualification, joint value, operating cadence, and pilot accountability artifact for 6.7.
  • Identify the exact evidence field, threshold, or decision point learners must defend.

Suggested flow

  1. 9 min - frame the field problem and evidence target
  2. 14 min - model the core concept or move
  3. 30 min - learner artifact production or simulation
  4. 15 min - critique against the evidence standard
  5. 7 min - exit ticket, risk note, and next handoff

Live facilitation

  • Use operating cadence as the test for whether strategy is real.
  • Ask learners to answer: What shared value, commitment, and operating rhythm make this partnership real?
  • Have learners find the decision point, the missing evidence, and the consequence of a poor choice.

Evidence to collect

  • Partner artifact names each party contribution, incentive, risk, owner, and decision cadence.
  • SCOPE or equivalent qualification is evidence-backed, not relationship-based.
  • Joint value proposition ties to a customer problem and proof path.
  • Pilot plan includes scope, timeline, economics, exit criteria, and escalation.

Formative check

Which sub-role in a pod most often gets dropped under cost pressure?

Reject or remediate

  • Reject partnership plans that describe logos instead of operating commitments.
  • Reject JVPs that describe both companies but not the customer outcome.
  • Reject pilots without owner, cadence, or kill criteria.

Rubric focus

  • Artifact is specific enough for a reviewer to inspect without a verbal walkthrough.
  • Evidence is tied to a field decision, not a general opinion.
  • Risks and limits are explicit.
  • Next action is clear and owned.

Support and stretch

Support: Give learners a partially completed partner qualification, joint value, operating cadence, and pilot accountability artifact and ask them to repair the weakest evidence field.

Stretch: Ask learners to defend the partner qualification, joint value, operating cadence, and pilot accountability tradeoff against a skeptical sponsor, reviewer, or operator.

Remediation path

  • Have the learner write the partner contribution ledger before benefits.
  • Add one kill criterion and one escalation path.
  • Rewrite the JVP from the customer sponsor viewpoint.

Debrief

Ask learners what changed in their artifact after review, what evidence remains weak, and what they would show a sponsor next.

Lesson 6.8 · Studio · 2 hr 30 min

Course 6 Mastery: A Joint Pilot Plan

Teaching intent

Use this lesson to teach partner qualification, joint value, operating cadence, and pilot accountability through the course lens of partner qualification, joint value proposition design, operating cadence, pilot planning, and co-sell/co-build discipline, anchored in a concrete field decision in the selected field context.

Before class

  • Open the trainee lesson and confirm prerequisites: 6.1–6.7.
  • Prepare a weak and strong partner qualification, joint value, operating cadence, and pilot accountability artifact for 6.8.
  • Identify the exact evidence field, threshold, or decision point learners must defend.

Suggested flow

  1. 18 min - frame the field problem and evidence target
  2. 27 min - model the core concept or move
  3. 60 min - learner artifact production or simulation
  4. 30 min - critique against the evidence standard
  5. 15 min - exit ticket, risk note, and next handoff

Live facilitation

  • Close every lesson with a next meeting, owner, artifact, and decision.
  • Ask learners to answer: What shared value, commitment, and operating rhythm make this partnership real?
  • Reserve most time for build, critique, revision, and final defense.

Evidence to collect

  • Partner artifact names each party contribution, incentive, risk, owner, and decision cadence.
  • SCOPE or equivalent qualification is evidence-backed, not relationship-based.
  • Joint value proposition ties to a customer problem and proof path.
  • Pilot plan includes scope, timeline, economics, exit criteria, and escalation.

Formative check

What single section, when missing from a pilot plan, predicts failure?

Reject or remediate

  • Reject partnership plans that describe logos instead of operating commitments.
  • Reject JVPs that describe both companies but not the customer outcome.
  • Reject pilots without owner, cadence, or kill criteria.

Rubric focus

  • Artifact is specific enough for a reviewer to inspect without a verbal walkthrough.
  • Evidence is tied to a field decision, not a general opinion.
  • Risks and limits are explicit.
  • Next action is clear and owned.

Support and stretch

Support: Give learners a partially completed partner qualification, joint value, operating cadence, and pilot accountability artifact and ask them to repair the weakest evidence field.

Stretch: Ask learners to defend the partner qualification, joint value, operating cadence, and pilot accountability tradeoff against a skeptical sponsor, reviewer, or operator.

Remediation path

  • Have the learner write the partner contribution ledger before benefits.
  • Add one kill criterion and one escalation path.
  • Rewrite the JVP from the customer sponsor viewpoint.

Debrief

Ask learners what changed in their artifact after review, what evidence remains weak, and what they would show a sponsor next.

Rubric for instructor review

  • Artifact quality: the output is inspectable, specific, and tied to the lesson objective.
  • Evidence discipline: the learner separates claims, assumptions, observations, and proof.
  • Field judgment: the learner explains tradeoffs, constraints, and next decisions.
  • Communication: the learner can explain the artifact to a sponsor, teammate, and reviewer.

Course handoff

Course 6 links capstone work to partner execution by turning evidence into a joint pilot plan.

  • Learners should leave with SCOPE qualification, JVP, operating cadence, and joint pilot plan artifacts.
  • Flag learners who describe partnership in marketing terms only.
  • Carry forward the pilot plan into senior practice leadership.