top of page
Search

3 partnership patterns that quietly kill good pilots

When I coach cleantech and deep‑tech founders on SME–corporate partnerships, one frustration comes back again and again: “The pilot went well… and then nothing happened.”



Eye-level view of a pilot’s cockpit showing controls and instruments

Image caption: A technology pilot crashing is like a car that crashed before it is launched to market.


Most of these “good pilots” do not die because of the technology. They die because of partnership patterns that nobody names out loud.


Here are three I see most often.


1. The “tourist” sponsor / champion

On paper, you have a sponsor, also called a champion, often the Innovation Manager They got you into the business, they like the solution, they sign the NDA, they come to the demo. But inside the corporate, they are more of a tourist than an owner.


Often they cannot commit budget, are remote from the decision table, and they will not fight for your rollout when priorities shift. You end up with a nice proof‑of‑concept but no path to procurement.


Red flags to look for:– They cannot name who would sign the contract if the pilot works.– They delay talking about a budget and who owns it.– They never use the words “this solves my problem” or “let me introduce you to John so that you understand his team challenges”.


One simple move that works for many startups included my client, a Swiss SaaS vendor targeting CFOs is to respectfully ask, early, “Who else needs to be in the room if this works?” to be able to, in good Account Based Marketing (ABM) style, you will need to map the decision maker tree. Research shows that there can be up to 11 decision makers as part of the decision making committee, and the champion is just one of them (Source: TheSmarketers). Gartner estimates that there are 6–10 stakeholders per complex B2B decision.


2. The “free consultancy” pilot

In this case, the SME brings ideas, data and energy. The corporate brings… feedback. The scope keeps expanding, more use cases are explored, but the commercial frame never hardens.


By the end, the SME has spent months tailoring its roadmap to one big client, without clarity on what “success” would mean commercially. Everyone is “very interested”, but no one is committed.  Even worse, I have seen SMEs extrapolating the big client story to the entire market needs when their problem was actually not representative of the industry.


Signals to look for:– No written pilot objectives linked to a concrete business case.– No discussion of pricing, even indicative..– Vague answers when you ask, “What would need to happen for this to move to rollout?”


One simple move: co‑design a very small, very clear pilot with 2–3 measurable outcomes and a documented “if/then” next step. (Source: CustomerGauge). This mirrors best practice identified in the EIC report and other pilot design research. When co-creating, ask them “What can you bring to the table (other than feedback)?”


In ABM terms, this is where you move from ‘generic PoC’ to a clear, account‑specific land‑and‑expand plan: one high‑impact use case, 2–3 success metrics, and a written ‘if this, then that’ next step for this account.


3. The “wrong scale, wrong process” trap

A €50k experiment is treated with the same procurement, security and legal process as a €5M system. For a young cleantech or deep‑tech SME, this is exhausting and quietly lethal.

The corporate is not acting in bad faith. They are using the only process they have. But if nobody questions proportionality, the collaboration burns out before it creates value.

Signals to look for:– Full vendor onboarding before any learning has taken place.– Nine‑month approval cycles for a limited‑scope pilot.– Security or compliance questionnaires that assume you are already a global vendor.


In ABM terms, this is where account fit and process fit collide. Your ideal customer profile may be right, but if the internal buying process is designed only for €5M vendors, the friction on a €50k pilot is simply too high to learn anything useful. ABM is not just about targeting the right accounts; it is also about designing proportionate engagement for each stage of the relationship inside that specific corporate. Just as explained by Customer Gauge, one of my clients asked their corporate prospect "What would success look like?" and subsequently broke down their energy from waste big pilot into “low cost installations” - with fewer technology bricks.


One simple move: propose a lighter‑weight “test before invest” track as part of the account plan for that corporate – with reduced risk and exposure for them, and a clear stage gate before full vendor onboarding. That is pure ABM: adapting how you sell to how this buying committee takes decisions, instead of forcing a strategic account to behave like a small customer. (Sources: EIC and PlusXInnovation)


An example of “test before invest” track, was one of my client whose technology cleans industrial water. They proposed to test & process the feed in their laboratory first on certain parameters, for a small fee.


In my work as a cleantech business coach and executive coach, I do not tell teams to “push harder” on corporates. I help both sides see these patterns earlier, name them safely, and redesign the collaboration so that good pilots have a real chance to become lasting SME–corporate partnerships.


If you recognise one of these patterns in a current pilot and want a thinking space to step back before the next steering meeting, feel free to reach out.


Sources:


 
 
 

Comments

bottom of page