by Martin McNally
Director of Product Management, CCI

This is the time of year when waterfalls are at their peak. In many parts of the country, water is flowing fast and wide and it's a beautiful sight. As the water continues to move, there is a source and destination at each segment of its journey. The same model can be used for funding co-op/MDF programs in support of channel sales and marketing activity. This is becoming an evermore popular alternative to more traditional accrual-based funding models.

In this model, money transfers from a master funding account, to a regional account, the eventually to a partner's account upon Prior Approval (PA) or Claim transaction approval. These transfer are automated and are performed using a series of transfers and adjustments for impacted accounts-each with an audit trail assuring no unauthorized over expenditure of funds in the process. Depending upon your company structure, program business rules and partner landscape, interim holding accounts may be involved too. If so, funding is further divided, at each step, between holding accounts until it reaches a funding account. The waterfall approach allows funding to "flow" from the top down through your defined account hierarchy and ultimately to the partner.

Throughout the process, the partner does not know the funding account or its balance. The partner has its own account where available and projected balances are calculated based on accruals, adjustments, prior approval and claim transactions and payments.

Waterfall funding allows the funds to flow upstream too. If a PA is closed, voided, or expired, any remaining funds that have not been claimed are returned to the funding account.

This approach is best suited for more discretionary models, where a master fund is established but the actual distribution of funds to partners is managed on a localized (decentralized) basis. This tracking is important because it accounts for all distribution of funds (spend and unspent) and ties back to a master budget with accountability and controls each step of the way. Many companies are evolving to this model, either apart from or in addition to accrual-based models, as the latter is felt to be more entitlement-oriented by the partner. This "waterfall" method of distribution focuses the fund where the opportunities are needed most. However, care must be taken to assure the distribution is consistent with Robinson Patmann guidelines-here in the US anyway. But that would be a legal matter and a topic for another blog entry. Rest assured, though, that your legal team knows all about that, should you want to consider this funding model for your own progfram

Let me explain the dilemma of these choices more thoroughly:

• Should you shop for application software and select a specific application before the requirements have been defined? (Effectively relegating the purchase decision based purely on the "wow" factor of the feature set, rapport with the sales person, or some other subjective basis). Or,
• Should you have a reasonable understanding of what your requirements are in advance of software evaluation and the ultimate selection of a specific application?

Proponents of the former argue that even though requirements aren't defined, in today's dynamic business environment the requirements change as often Paris Hilton's BFF, so the requirements aren't that important if not just loosely defined. Plus, assuming the solution provider can demonstrate domain expertise, they can help shape the implementation to optimize your instance using their wealth of best practice experience.

Conversely, proponents of the latter make the point that it would be difficult to truly evaluate the value of a given solution to one's organization without clearly defined selection and performance criteria-especially if there is a buying committee tasked with making the final decision. Otherwise, one never really knows what their getting until it's too late.

Interestingly, my own informal pole on the subject among what I would think would be highly qualified individuals (as highly qualified as you can be at a cocktail party, anyway) indicates that there is pretty much an even split between the two philosophies. Frankly, I'm surprised by that polarity....although I shouldn't be, because I have made sales under both scenarios in my career-even purchases dare I say. However, my best advice (not that you asked) clearly falls in the second camp-define your requirements first. That's just my opinion, mind you, but I'd be interested in hearing yours.