Recipe 5 of 5 · partner performance
The common failure mode isn't that partners perform badly — it's that performance data isn't collected systematically, so conversations about quality happen only after a problem has already surfaced.
Institutional asset management depends on a network of external partners — technical inspectors, legal advisors, brokers, facility managers — each touching a subset of the portfolio. Building a lightweight, ongoing register of how each partner performs turns those conversations from reactive to structured, and gives you a factual basis when it's time to increase volume with a partner, flag one for review, or make no change at all.
Extend your task scheduling sheet with four columns: Date Partner Accepted, Partner Committed Date, Date Completed, Completion Within SLA (Yes/No). Log these values for every task that closes.
When you send the briefing email, add a link to a simple Typeform the partner clicks to confirm acceptance. The click timestamp is written automatically to the register.
Add a summary tab that aggregates by Partner Firm: total tasks assigned, completed on time, completed late, average days overdue. Use COUNTIFS formulas — this updates automatically as new rows are added.
Use the AI-generated performance summary as the basis for a structured monthly partner review meeting. Share relevant sections with each partner firm as part of a feedback loop to drive continuous improvement.
A shared register logging acceptance date, committed date, completion date and SLA status per task, aggregated by partner with simple formulas, covers the basics well. The gap is that it stays a separate spreadsheet, disconnected from the scheduling and document systems that generated the underlying tasks.
Yes — pasting an aggregated table into a prompt asking for on-time-rate trend, late-task patterns, and a one-sentence recommendation per firm works well and turns a raw table into something usable in a review meeting with minimal manual effort.