| name | renewal-play-design |
| description | Design renewal motions that earn the renewal instead of negotiating it — T-180/T-120/T-90/T-60/T-30/T-0 sequence, sponsor-confirmation arc, value-evidence pack, multi-thread the buying committee, decision-memo support, expand/maintain/contract decision rule, and segment-specific overlays (K-12 budget cycle, higher-ed academic calendar, corp L&D fiscal year). Reach for this skill 120-90 days before a renewal date, when a renewal "should be safe" but no movement has happened, or when designing the firm's renewal playbook. Used by `success-playbook-designer` (primary) + `edtech-partner-success-manager`. |
Skill: renewal-play-design
Invoked by: success-playbook-designer (primary — when authoring or refreshing the firm's renewal play), edtech-partner-success-manager (when executing the renewal motion on a specific partner).
When to invoke: 120-90 days before a renewal date; when a renewal "should be safe" but no movement has happened in the last touchpoints; when designing the firm-wide renewal playbook for a new segment or product surface.
Output: a sequenced renewal motion with named milestones, sponsor-confirmation checks, value-evidence pack, multi-thread coverage map, and a renew/expand/recover/exit decision.
The core opinion this skill encodes
A renewal you have to negotiate at T-7 is a renewal you already lost the narrative on. The renewal is earned in months -6 to -2, not in the final week. A renewal play is the sequenced motion that builds the partner's own internal case for renewal so the conversation at T-30 is "confirm the redline," not "convince me to stay."
Most renewal misses are diagnosable at T-90: sponsor never confirmed, value-evidence pack missing, single-thread to one champion, no decision-memo support. This skill exists to make those misses visible while there's time to act.
See also: ../../knowledge/renewal-pricing-conversations-edtech.md for the K-12 renewal-clock-at-120-180-days reality (K-12 is not 90).
The renewal timeline
Default for SaaS-shaped EdTech renewals. Compress earlier for K-12 (start at T-180 because the January-March budget-build window is the real decision-maker, not the renewal date itself).
| Milestone | When | What | Skill / Template |
|---|
| T-180 | Sponsor confirmation arc starts | Verify the named sponsor is still in role, still the decision-maker, still engaged | executive-sponsor-mapping.md |
| T-120 | Value-evidence pack assembled | 3-5 specific outcomes the partner now has that they didn't pre-purchase, tied to the original success plan | success-plan-authoring.md |
| T-90 | Multi-thread the buying committee | Champion + economic buyer + IT/ops + skeptic all confirmed engaged | executive-sponsor-mapping.md |
| T-60 | Economic-buyer confirmation | Renewal conversation with the actual budget-holder, not just the champion | — |
| T-30 | Decision memo lands | Partner's exec has an internal memo to take into approval (PSM helps it exist; partner authors) | ../templates/renewal-decision-memo.md |
| T-7 | Redline | Commercial close; "no surprises" delivered | — |
| T-0 | Renewal in hand | Captured in profile; expansion-readiness check kicks off if applicable | expansion-play-design.md |
If any milestone is missed, the play branches into a recovery sub-play — see recovery-play-design.md. Don't keep marching forward as if the milestone happened; missed milestones are the leading indicator.
The sponsor-confirmation arc (T-180)
The named sponsor on the partner profile is the person we believe makes the decision. Verify, don't assume:
- Is the sponsor still in role? (LinkedIn, partner's directory, recent QBR attendance) — turnover is high in K-12 superintendents (~23% 2024-25) and L&D leaders.
- Is this still the right exec? Org changes since contract signature may have moved the decision authority up or down or sideways.
- Has the sponsor attended the last 2 QBRs? Attendance is a sponsor-health signal. Two no-shows = potential ghost sponsor (see
executive-sponsor-mapping.md).
- Does the sponsor have a successor named? If sponsor is rumored to be leaving, who's next.
The output of T-180 is a written, dated update to the partner profile's stakeholder section. Verbal confirmation doesn't count (default to written, per the team constitution).
The value-evidence pack (T-120)
3-5 specific outcomes the partner now has that they didn't pre-purchase, tied to the original success plan. Tied to the original goals, not to internal KPIs.
Each outcome:
- Outcome statement — in the partner's framing, not ours
- Driver — what specifically the partner did with the product that produced the outcome
- Measurement — the data, with source, date range, comparison baseline (per
qbr-composition.md data-pull discipline)
- Period — when this materialized (so the partner can place it in their own narrative)
Anti-pattern: generic value claims ("engagement up 18%"). The partner's CFO will discount any number without a baseline and a source. Every number gets provenance.
The value-evidence pack is reusable into:
- The renewal QBR deck
- The partner's internal decision memo
- The advocacy-program ask (if the partner is top-quartile and is willing — see
advocacy-program-design.md)
Multi-thread the buying committee (T-90)
Single-thread to one champion = single point of failure. By T-90 the play needs all four roles confirmed engaged:
- Champion — internal advocate; usually the day-to-day user-leader; carries the narrative
- Economic buyer — actually controls the budget line; often not the champion; usually a tier above
- IT / operational owner — owns the technical reality (rostering, SSO, integrations) and can kill a renewal on integration debt alone
- Skeptic — every committee has one; better surfaced now than at T-30. Find them, hear their concern, address it in the value-evidence pack.
The multi-thread coverage gap visualization (see executive-sponsor-mapping.md) makes the gaps visible. A blank cell at T-90 = a touchpoint to schedule, not a worry to file.
Decision-memo support (T-30)
The partner's exec writes the internal memo that recommends renewal to their approval body (district board, university procurement, corporate finance). The PSM does NOT write the memo. The PSM helps it exist:
- Shares the value-evidence pack in a form the exec can paste
- Shares 1-2 peer-segment reference points (anonymized; via
advocacy-program-design.md)
- Shares the multi-year math (if applicable; see segment overlays below)
- Shares the comparable-cost framing (what the alternative looks like)
See ../templates/renewal-decision-memo.md for the PSM-side artifact that becomes input to the partner's memo.
The expand / maintain / contract decision rule
At T-90 the PSM makes an internal recommendation. Three inputs:
| Input | Expand | Maintain | Contract / Exit |
|---|
| Health score | Top-quartile | Mid-quartile, stable | Bottom-quartile or declining |
| Adoption trajectory | Improving + room to grow | Steady at target | Declining or stuck |
| Organizational readiness | New budget / new sponsor energy | Status quo | Org change against us / sponsor lost |
- Expand → trigger
expansion-play-design.md after the renewal closes, not bundled in
- Maintain → renew flat (or with standard increase) and continue
- Contract / exit → trigger
recovery-play-design.md immediately; the renewal motion is the recovery
Anti-pattern: running an expansion motion on a yellow account during the renewal window. It conflates the relationship, burns the renewal, and signals to the partner that the PSM is on quota. Don't do it.
Segment-specific overlays
K-12
- The renewal clock starts at T-180, not T-120. K-12 budget-build window is January-March in most districts; renewals in July-September are decided in that window.
- Board approval timing matters. Many districts have a board consent-agenda meeting in April-June; the recommendation lands there. Miss that window and the renewal slips into the next fiscal year (or doesn't happen).
- Multi-year is the exception, not the rule — annual-appropriation principle means most districts can't commit beyond the current fiscal year. Frame multi-year as a price-hold, not a budget-commitment.
- State data-privacy law re-triggers at renewal in NY (Ed Law §2-d), IL (SOPPA), CA (SOPIPA). Re-confirm DPA currency before T-60.
- Superintendent turnover ~23% in 2024-25. Confirm sponsor at T-180 and again at T-90.
See ../knowledge/renewal-pricing-conversations-edtech.md for the full K-12 renewal context.
Higher-ed
- The academic calendar drives decisions. Renewals dated July 1 are decided in March-April faculty-governance windows.
- Procurement-led RFPs are more common than in K-12. Incumbent win rates 60-90% when the relationship is healthy; defending an incumbent RFP is a separate play (loop in
partner-profile-curator for the history).
- CIO / VPSA + budget committee often the actual economic buyer, not the dean or department head who's the day-to-day champion.
Corporate L&D
- Fiscal year drives the budget reset. A January-end FY means October-November is the decision window; a June-end FY means February-March.
- L&D budgets are first-cut. When the partner's company hits a budget squeeze, L&D moves before sales tools or compliance tools. Build the renewal narrative around outcome-vs-cost-of-alternative, not just outcome.
- Multi-year is more accessible than in K-12 (no annual-appropriation constraint), and a multi-year commit can be a useful budget-defense for the L&D leader internally.
The "no surprises" sequence
By T-7 the partner should already know:
- The recommended renewal posture (flat / increase X% / multi-year)
- The pricing (no last-minute surprises; see
renewal-pricing-conversations-edtech.md)
- The DPA / contractual changes (re-triggered state-privacy law, AI-feature disclosures, sub-processor changes)
- Any expansion-conversation status (deferred to post-renewal, or active but unbundled)
- The named individual on the partner side who's signing
Surprises at T-7 are the #1 reason a "safe" renewal slips. The play is built to remove them.
Anti-patterns this skill flags
- Renewal pitched at T-7. The PSM hasn't been running a play; they've been running a status meeting.
- Sponsor never confirmed. Default-assumed-still-in-role is the most common renewal failure mode.
- Expansion pitched during a yellow renewal. Conflates the conversation, burns the renewal.
- Generic value claims. "Engagement up 18%" with no baseline gets discounted to zero in the partner's internal memo.
- No decision-memo support. PSM hands over a deck and hopes; the partner exec gets to approval with no shareable artifact.
- Single-thread to one champion. Champion leaves at T-45 and the renewal evaporates.
- K-12 motion run on a SaaS clock. Starting at T-90 means the budget-build window already closed.
- Running the renewal motion without the partner profile open. Prior incidents, named contacts, what they care about — all live there.
Hygiene checklist
Before declaring the renewal play "executing":
When NOT to invoke
- The partner is in active recovery (red health). The renewal motion is the recovery — use
recovery-play-design.md and adapt the renewal sub-play out of it, not the other way around.
- The contract auto-renews and the partner isn't economically reviewing it (rare in EdTech; common in some corp L&D). The play collapses to a sponsor-confirmation arc + light QBR.
- The renewal date is < 30 days out and no play was ever started. At that point the play library is recovery-only; running the standard renewal play in 30 days creates the illusion of process and burns trust.
Refresh triggers
- Renewals close successfully but the multi-year attach rate drops — the value-evidence pack isn't selling depth
- A pattern of T-30 surprises emerges — the no-surprises sequence isn't catching them
- Segment mix shifts (more corp L&D, less K-12) — segment-overlay weighting needs re-tuning
- Regulatory change re-triggers DPA review for a segment
References
