The two-week partner map: a minimum viable ecosystem map for programme teams

Build a useful partner map without attempting a census. This two-week routine helps a programme team define a decision, collect comparable records, check them with people who know the market, and turn the result into a short list of next conversations.

### Use this when Use this when a team is entering a market, redesigning a programme, or repeatedly asking, “Who should we speak to?” It is also useful when an existing spreadsheet has grown into an unowned list of names. The aim is not to rank an ecosystem or claim completeness. It is to make the actors, roles, relevance and next actions visible enough to support one real programme decision. The OECD’s ecosystem-mapping toolkit describes mapping as a way to identify actors, explore motivations and resources, cluster roles, and notice non-obvious participants. It suggests a small working group and a focused session rather than an endless research project. [1] The Urban Institute likewise frames ecosystem mapping as visualising a network and understanding how organisations contribute, or could contribute, to a common goal. [2] ### The outcome At the end of two weeks you have one dated working map, a clean partner register, a clear note on gaps and assumptions, and a prioritised list of conversations. Each record has a named source, a last-checked date, a role in the programme, and a proposed next move. The map is good enough to act on and easy enough to refresh. ### Before you start **Inputs:** the programme brief, target geography or theme, current partner list, public organisation pages, internal referrals, and a simple spreadsheet. Decide what “partner” means for this exercise: referral source, host, mentor, corporate pilot, investor, researcher, public agency or another role. Use consistent categories. **People:** one accountable owner, one researcher or analyst, and two to four reviewers who understand the programme or target market. The OECD toolkit recommends a group of two to six for a focused mapping exercise. [1] **Time:** reserve two working sessions in week one, three research blocks, and one review session in week two. Keep the scope to one decision, one geography or corridor, and one programme cycle. ### Step by step 1. **Write the decision at the top of the page.** Complete this sentence: “We are mapping the ecosystem so that we can decide...” Examples include selecting referral partners for a cohort or identifying hosts for a market visit. Add the date and owner. If the decision cannot be stated in one sentence, reduce the scope. 2. **Define the map’s fields before collecting names.** Use: organisation; country and city; organisation type; role in the programme; sectors or themes; audience served; cross-border relevance; public URL; named contact if publicly available; evidence checked; last checked; relationship status; next action; owner. Add a confidence field—confirmed, plausible, or to verify—so uncertainty is visible. 3. **Create the first long list.** Start with organisations already known to the team. Add public sources such as government directories, programme pages, research directories and professional networks. Search by function, not only by brand: “market-entry support”, “university entrepreneurship centre”, “corporate innovation team”, or “seed investor in [sector]”. Record the source as you go. Do not copy a claim you cannot trace. 4. **Cluster by job to be done.** Put each organisation into one primary role and, if needed, one secondary role. Useful clusters are programme delivery, founder support, capital, research, corporate access, public-sector support, and community or media. The role should describe what the organisation could do for this programme, not what it is famous for. 5. **Add the missing-player pass.** Ask reviewers: Which local actor would a founder trust? Which organisation is visible online but not operationally relevant? Which language, sector or geography is missing? Who holds a capability that does not advertise itself as startup support? Add candidates with “to verify” status rather than filling gaps with assumptions. 6. **Score for the immediate decision, not for prestige.** Use a three-point scale for relevance, access and fit. Relevance asks whether the organisation can help with the stated decision. Access asks whether there is a credible route to a conversation. Fit asks whether the role, geography, stage and expectations align. Keep the scorecard in the working file and write one sentence of evidence for each high-priority record. 7. **Run a 45-minute review.** Share the map before the meeting. Spend ten minutes correcting facts, fifteen minutes testing clusters, ten minutes naming missing actors, and ten minutes choosing the first five conversations. Assign an owner and a reason for every next action. The map is not approved merely because nobody objects. 8. **Turn the map into a conversation queue.** For each priority organisation, write the specific question you need answered, the value you can offer, and the lightest appropriate route: a public event, a Need/Offer, an introduction request, or a direct professional message. Set a review date two weeks after the first outreach. 9. **Publish the internal version with a boundary note.** State the coverage, date, sources, unknowns and intended use. Do not present an unverified list as an official directory. Keep sensitive contact notes restricted to the team that needs them. ### Templates **Minimum viable partner-register row** ```text Organisation: Country / city: Primary role for this programme: Secondary role (optional): Who it serves: Why relevant to our decision: Public evidence URL: Named contact (only if publicly available): Confidence: confirmed / plausible / to verify Relationship status: unknown / aware / warm / active Next question: Next action and owner: Last checked (YYYY-MM-DD): ``` **Review prompt:** “Looking at this map, which actor could materially change our programme decision but is absent, misclassified or treated as more accessible than the evidence supports?” ### Common mistakes Do not begin with a giant geography and no decision. Do not equate a polished website with current capability. Do not collect personal data that the programme does not need. Do not score organisations by fame, follower count or assumed influence. Do not hide uncertainty in a neat diagram. Do not finish with a map and no conversation queue. ### How to tell it worked The team can explain what the map is for in one sentence. Reviewers can correct records without rebuilding the structure. Priority organisations have a reason, a route and an owner. The next programme decision uses the map explicitly. When a conversation changes an assumption, the record and date are updated. ### Using LINKK for this Use LINKK’s Partner directory to inspect organisation profiles and distinguish unclaimed, claimed and verified listings. Claim your own organisation profile so its programme context is easier to check. Where a gap is actionable, post a Need or Offer in the relevant marketplace category, or use a recipient-led introduction request rather than assuming access. ### Sources [1]: https://oecd-opsi.org/toolkits/ecosystem-mapping/ "OECD OPSI Ecosystem Mapping toolkit" [2]: https://www.urban.org/research/publication/guide-civic-tech-and-data-ecosystem-mapping "Urban Institute Guide to Civic Tech and Data Ecosystem Mapping" ---