The reality of running a smaller Anaplan partner (20–100 FTE)
- Štěpán Zechovský
- Mar 25
- 3 min read
Updated: May 13
Here’s what I see smaller Anaplan partner leaders struggle with.
On one hand, you play a critical role in the ecosystem. You are often closer to clients, more flexible, and more specialized than larger firms. You win work because of expertise, not scale.
On the other hand, the way your business operates makes growth inherently unstable.
Most smaller Anaplan partners I’ve worked with are not struggling because of lack of demand.
They’re struggling because demand doesn’t arrive in a manageable way.
The problem no one really solves: pipeline volatility
In a smaller practice, one or two deals can change everything.
You go from manageable workload to overload in a matter of weeks
Key architects and delivery leads get spread too thin
Hiring cannot keep up with project start dates
I’ve seen partners win two large deals in a quarter and immediately run into delivery risk, not because they lack capability, but because they lack deployable capacity at the right time.
If this is not managed well, it leads to:
overcommitted senior people
declining delivery quality
and eventually client dissatisfaction
The irony is that growth creates risk faster than stability.
Revenue targets vs bench risk
Every partner knows this tension. You need consultants to deliver revenue.
But you don’t want to carry cost when projects end.
In smaller firms, this trade-off is sharper:
hiring too early creates bench cost you can’t absorb
hiring too late creates delivery risk you can’t hide
So what happens in practice?
partners stretch existing teams
delay hiring decisions
or rely on whoever is available at short notice
None of these are sustainable.
This is where many smaller partners get stuck:
they optimize for short-term utilization, not long-term stability.
Niche strength vs missed opportunities
Most smaller partners have a clear strength:
a specific industry
a functional area (FP&A, S&OP, etc.)
a geography, strong local network of contacts
That’s exactly why they win work.
But it also creates a constraint.
When a deal requires:
a different expertise
a different language
or a slightly broader scope
partners often decline it.
Not because they don’t understand the opportunity,
but because they can’t deliver it safely with their current team.
Over time, that means:
lost revenue
limited market expansion
and dependence on a narrow pipeline
Why freelancers alone don’t solve this
Many partners try to solve these problems with freelancers.
That helps, but it comes with its own risks:
availability is unpredictable
good freelancers are often already booked
quality varies
and there is often a single point of failure
Freelancers are useful, but they are not a delivery model.
They are still reactive.
What smaller partners often miss
The partners that scale more sustainably usually make one shift:
They focus internally on what truly differentiates them,
and treat everything else as flexible capacity.
That doesn’t mean turning down work outside your core.
It means:
keeping ownership of the client and solution
while flexing delivery capacity where needed
For example:
keeping solution architecture internal
flexing build capacity externally
adding specific expertise (e.g. workforce, sales planning) when required
covering language or geography gaps without permanent hiring
This allows you to:
say yes to more work
without permanently increasing fixed cost
and without overloading your core team
How SKU Point supports smaller partners
SKU Point works with smaller Anaplan partners who need reliable delivery capacity without long-term commitment.
In practice, that means:
access to a curated network of experienced Anaplan consultants
availability across geographies, languages, and domains (FP&A, S&OP, Sales, Workforce)
the ability to activate capacity quickly when deals land
Because we speak with dozens of Anaplan consultants every week, the network stays current and deployable, not theoretical.
The goal is simple:
help partners absorb demand spikes
reduce dependency on individual freelancers
and protect their core team from overload
Takeaway for smaller Anaplan partners
If I strip this down to what matters:
Your biggest challenge is not demand, but volatility
Internal teams alone cannot absorb that volatility
Stretching senior people works short-term and creates risk long-term
Turning down work limits growth
A hybrid delivery model gives you more control than hiring or freelancing alone
What most smaller partners do today:
stretch teams
delay hiring
rely on ad-hoc freelancers
What is worth considering instead:
protect your core team
keep your differentiation internal
Accept that demand volatility is part of your business risks
and find a reliable partner that will help you manage that risk in a predictable and sustainable way
About author
I help Anaplan and Pigment partners secure and deliver larger projects without staffing delays, bench risk, or long-term hiring commitments.
My work is guided by clarity, trustworthiness, and speed - helping clients and partners achieve maximum ROI through fast, reliable delivery backed by deep hands-on experience.
Comments