Breadth Assessment and Review
A comparable view across a selected group of partners
Most organisations can describe each of their important partners individually. The harder question is how those relationships compare. One partner may receive attention because of its history, another may appear successful because it reports well, and a third may have genuine potential but lack the internal support to develop.
Without a common view, portfolio decisions are shaped by reputation, visibility and the strength of individual relationships rather than current evidence.
Breadth brings a selected group of partners into one comparable view.
The portfolio question
The question is which relationships deserve more, less or different attention. A closer comparison is useful when:
- Similar partners are producing very different results.
- Resources are spread too thinly across the portfolio.
- It is unclear which relationships have the strongest basis for further investment.
- Some relationships receive considerable attention without a clear commercial reason.
- Management needs to identify which partners require a deeper review.
This is not a league table. A partner can be strong in one area and need support in another, and what matters is seeing those differences before deciding how to respond.
How Breadth works
Each partner is assessed against the same relevant criteria and scoring model. This removes the problem of one partner being judged on revenue, another on activity and another on the confidence of the relationship owner.
The analysis shows where partners share similar conditions, where results differ and whether a concern sits within one relationship or appears across the portfolio. A portfolio heatmap then brings the findings together, showing patterns, exceptions and the areas where attention is concentrated or missing.
What you can decide
Breadth gives you the evidence to decide:
- Which partners justify further investment.
- Where support should be redirected.
- Which relationships can be maintained without additional intervention.
- Where a common improvement programme would help several partners.
- Which partners need individual attention.
- Whether the current partner segmentation still reflects reality.
You receive a portfolio heatmap, comparable partner views, the main patterns and outliers, and a set of prioritised actions. That gives you one portfolio position in place of a collection of separate partner updates.
Keeping the portfolio current
Partners change direction, capability and commitment, so the portfolio should not be treated as fixed. Repeating the review shows what has changed, whether previous investment had the intended effect and whether resources should move again.
Starting the conversation
Breadth places a selected group of partners side by side on the same criteria and shows where attention and investment should go. You receive a portfolio heatmap and prioritised actions, so portfolio decisions rest on current evidence.
If your portfolio has reached the point where comparison matters, the first step is a conversation. I will ask about the decisions you are facing and how you currently compare partners, and help you judge whether a portfolio view is warranted.