--- name: "business-growth-skills" description: "4 production-ready business and growth skills: customer success manager with health scoring and churn prediction, sales engineer with RFP analysis, revenue operations with pipeline and GTM metrics, and contract & proposal writer. Python tools included (all stdlib-only). Works with Claude Code, Codex CLI, and OpenClaw." version: 1.1.0 author: Alireza Rezvani license: MIT tags: - business - customer-success - sales - revenue-operations - growth agents: - claude-code - codex-cli - openclaw --- # Business & Growth Skills 4 production-ready skills for customer success, sales, and revenue operations. ## Quick Start ### Claude Code ``` /read business-growth/customer-success-manager/SKILL.md ``` ### Codex CLI ```bash npx agent-skills-cli add alirezarezvani/claude-skills/business-growth ``` ## Skills Overview | Skill | Folder | Focus | |-------|--------|-------| | Customer Success Manager | `customer-success-manager/` | Health scoring, churn prediction, expansion | | Sales Engineer | `sales-engineer/` | RFP analysis, competitive matrices, PoC planning | | Revenue Operations | `revenue-operations/` | Pipeline analysis, forecast accuracy, GTM metrics | | Contract & Proposal Writer | `contract-and-proposal-writer/` | Proposal generation, contract templates | ## Python Tools 9 scripts, all stdlib-only: ```bash python3 customer-success-manager/scripts/health_score_calculator.py --help python3 revenue-operations/scripts/pipeline_analyzer.py --help ``` ## Rules - Load only the specific skill SKILL.md you need - Use Python tools for scoring and metrics, not manual estimates FILE:CLAUDE.md # Business & Growth Skills - Claude Code Guidance This guide covers the 3 production-ready business and growth skills and their Python automation tools. ## Business & Growth Skills Overview **Available Skills:** 1. **customer-success-manager/** - Customer health scoring, churn risk analysis, expansion opportunities (3 Python tools) 2. **sales-engineer/** - Technical discovery, RFP analysis, competitive positioning, POC planning (3 Python tools) 3. **revenue-operations/** - Pipeline analysis, forecast accuracy, GTM efficiency metrics (3 Python tools) **Total Tools:** 9 Python automation tools, 9 knowledge bases, 19+ templates ## Python Automation Tools ### Customer Success Manager Tools #### 1. Health Score Calculator (`customer-success-manager/scripts/health_score_calculator.py`) **Purpose:** Multi-dimensional customer health scoring with trend analysis **Features:** - Weighted scoring across 4 dimensions (usage, engagement, support, relationship) - Red/Yellow/Green classification with configurable thresholds - Trend analysis comparing current vs previous period - Segment-aware benchmarking (Enterprise/Mid-Market/SMB) **Usage:** ```bash python customer-success-manager/scripts/health_score_calculator.py customer_data.json python customer-success-manager/scripts/health_score_calculator.py customer_data.json --format json ``` #### 2. Churn Risk Analyzer (`customer-success-manager/scripts/churn_risk_analyzer.py`) **Purpose:** Identify at-risk accounts with intervention recommendations **Features:** - Risk scoring based on behavioral signals - Warning signal detection and categorization - Tier-appropriate intervention playbooks - Urgency-based prioritization **Usage:** ```bash python customer-success-manager/scripts/churn_risk_analyzer.py customer_data.json python customer-success-manager/scripts/churn_risk_analyzer.py customer_data.json --format json ``` #### 3. Expansion Opportunity Scorer (`customer-success-manager/scripts/expansion_opportunity_scorer.py`) **Purpose:** Identify upsell and cross-sell opportunities **Features:** - Adoption depth analysis across product modules - Whitespace mapping for unused features - Revenue opportunity estimation - Priority ranking by effort and impact **Usage:** ```bash python customer-success-manager/scripts/expansion_opportunity_scorer.py customer_data.json python customer-success-manager/scripts/expansion_opportunity_scorer.py customer_data.json --format json ``` ### Sales Engineer Tools #### 4. RFP Response Analyzer (`sales-engineer/scripts/rfp_response_analyzer.py`) **Purpose:** Score RFP/RFI coverage and identify gaps **Features:** - Requirement coverage scoring (Full/Partial/Planned/Gap) - Effort estimation per requirement - Gap identification with mitigation strategies - Overall bid/no-bid recommendation **Usage:** ```bash python sales-engineer/scripts/rfp_response_analyzer.py rfp_data.json python sales-engineer/scripts/rfp_response_analyzer.py rfp_data.json --format json ``` #### 5. Competitive Matrix Builder (`sales-engineer/scripts/competitive_matrix_builder.py`) **Purpose:** Generate feature comparison matrices and competitive positioning **Features:** - Feature-by-feature comparison matrix - Competitive scoring with weighted categories - Differentiator identification - Battlecard-ready output **Usage:** ```bash python sales-engineer/scripts/competitive_matrix_builder.py competitive_data.json python sales-engineer/scripts/competitive_matrix_builder.py competitive_data.json --format json ``` #### 6. POC Planner (`sales-engineer/scripts/poc_planner.py`) **Purpose:** Plan proof-of-concept engagements **Features:** - Timeline estimation based on scope - Resource allocation planning - Success criteria definition - Evaluation scorecard generation **Usage:** ```bash python sales-engineer/scripts/poc_planner.py poc_data.json python sales-engineer/scripts/poc_planner.py poc_data.json --format json ``` ### Revenue Operations Tools #### 7. Pipeline Analyzer (`revenue-operations/scripts/pipeline_analyzer.py`) **Purpose:** Analyze sales pipeline health and velocity **Features:** - Coverage ratio calculation (pipeline/quota) - Stage conversion rate analysis - Sales velocity metrics (4-lever model) - Deal aging analysis **Usage:** ```bash python revenue-operations/scripts/pipeline_analyzer.py pipeline_data.json python revenue-operations/scripts/pipeline_analyzer.py pipeline_data.json --format json ``` #### 8. Forecast Accuracy Tracker (`revenue-operations/scripts/forecast_accuracy_tracker.py`) **Purpose:** Measure and improve forecast accuracy **Features:** - MAPE (Mean Absolute Percentage Error) calculation - Forecast bias detection (over/under-forecasting) - Period-over-period trend analysis - Category-level accuracy breakdown **Usage:** ```bash python revenue-operations/scripts/forecast_accuracy_tracker.py forecast_data.json python revenue-operations/scripts/forecast_accuracy_tracker.py forecast_data.json --format json ``` #### 9. GTM Efficiency Calculator (`revenue-operations/scripts/gtm_efficiency_calculator.py`) **Purpose:** Calculate go-to-market efficiency metrics **Features:** - Magic number calculation - LTV:CAC ratio analysis - CAC payback period - Burn multiple assessment - Industry benchmarking **Usage:** ```bash python revenue-operations/scripts/gtm_efficiency_calculator.py gtm_data.json python revenue-operations/scripts/gtm_efficiency_calculator.py gtm_data.json --format json ``` ## Quality Standards **All business & growth Python tools must:** - Use standard library only (no external dependencies) - Support both JSON and human-readable output via `--format` flag - Provide clear error messages for invalid input - Return appropriate exit codes - Process files locally (no API calls) - Include argparse CLI with `--help` support ## Related Skills - **Marketing:** Content creation, demand generation -> `../marketing-skill/` - **Product Team:** User research, feature prioritization -> `../product-team/` - **C-Level:** Strategic planning -> `../c-level-advisor/` - **Engineering:** Technical implementation -> `../engineering-team/` --- **Last Updated:** February 2026 **Skills Deployed:** 3/3 business & growth skills production-ready **Total Tools:** 9 Python automation tools FILE:contract-and-proposal-writer/SKILL.md --- name: "contract-and-proposal-writer" description: "Contract & Proposal Writer" --- # Contract & Proposal Writer **Tier:** POWERFUL **Category:** Business Growth **Domain:** Legal Documents, Business Development, Client Relations --- ## Overview Generate professional, jurisdiction-aware business documents: freelance contracts, project proposals, SOWs, NDAs, and MSAs. Outputs structured Markdown with docx conversion instructions. Covers US (Delaware), EU (GDPR), UK, and DACH (German law) jurisdictions. **Not a substitute for legal counsel.** Use these templates as strong starting points; review with an attorney for high-value or complex engagements. --- ## Core Capabilities - Freelance development contracts (fixed-price & hourly) - Project proposals with timeline/budget breakdown - Statements of Work (SOW) with deliverables matrix - NDAs (mutual & one-way) - Master Service Agreements (MSA) - Jurisdiction-specific clauses (US/EU/UK/DACH) - GDPR Data Processing Addenda (EU/DACH) --- ## Key Clauses Reference | Clause | Options | |--------|---------| | Payment terms | Net-30, milestone-based, monthly retainer | | IP ownership | Work-for-hire (US), assignment (EU/UK), license-back | | Liability cap | 1x contract value (standard), 3x (high-risk) | | Termination | For cause (14-day cure), convenience (30/60/90-day notice) | | Confidentiality | 2-5 year term, perpetual for trade secrets | | Warranty | "As-is" disclaimer, limited 30/90-day fix warranty | | Dispute resolution | Arbitration (AAA/ICC), courts (jurisdiction-specific) | --- ## When to Use - Starting a new client engagement and need a contract fast - Client asks for a proposal with pricing and timeline - Partnership or vendor relationship requiring an MSA - Protecting IP or confidential information with an NDA - EU/DACH project requiring GDPR-compliant data clauses --- ## Workflow ### 1. Gather Requirements Ask the user: 1. Document type? (contract / proposal / SOW / NDA / MSA) 2. Jurisdiction? (US-Delaware / EU / UK / DACH) 3. Engagement type? (fixed-price / hourly / retainer) 4. Parties? (names, roles, business addresses) 5. Scope summary? (1-3 sentences) 6. Total value or hourly rate? 7. Start date / end date or duration? 8. Special requirements? (IP assignment, white-label, subcontractors) ### 2. Select Template | Type | Jurisdiction | Template | |------|-------------|----------| | Dev contract fixed | Any | Template A | | Consulting retainer | Any | Template B | | SaaS partnership | Any | Template C | | NDA mutual | US/EU/UK/DACH | NDA-M | | NDA one-way | US/EU/UK/DACH | NDA-OW | | SOW | Any | SOW base | ### 3. Generate & Fill Fill all [BRACKETED] placeholders. Flag missing data as "REQUIRED". ### 4. Convert to DOCX ```bash # Install pandoc brew install pandoc # macOS apt install pandoc # Ubuntu # Basic conversion pandoc contract.md -o contract.docx \ --reference-doc=reference.docx \ -V geometry:margin=1in # With numbered sections (legal style) pandoc contract.md -o contract.docx \ --number-sections \ -V documentclass=article \ -V fontsize=11pt # With custom company template pandoc contract.md -o contract.docx \ --reference-doc=company-template.docx ``` --- ## Jurisdiction Notes ### US (Delaware) - Governing law: State of Delaware - Work-for-hire doctrine applies (Copyright Act 101) - Arbitration: AAA Commercial Rules - Non-compete: enforceable with reasonable scope/time ### EU (GDPR) - Must include Data Processing Addendum if handling personal data - IP assignment requires separate written deed in some member states - Arbitration: ICC or local chamber ### UK (post-Brexit) - Governed by English law - IP: Patents Act 1977 / CDPA 1988 - Arbitration: LCIA Rules - Data: UK GDPR (post-Brexit equivalent) ### DACH (Germany / Austria / Switzerland) - BGB (Buergerliches Gesetzbuch) governs contracts - Written form requirement for certain clauses (para 126 BGB) - IP: Author always retains moral rights; must explicitly transfer Nutzungsrechte - Non-competes: max 2 years, compensation required (para 74 HGB) - Jurisdiction: German courts (Landgericht) or DIS arbitration - DSGVO (GDPR implementation) mandatory for personal data processing - Kuendigungsfristen: statutory notice periods apply --- ## Template A: Web Dev Fixed-Price Contract ```markdown # SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT **Effective Date:** [DATE] **Client:** [CLIENT LEGAL NAME], [ADDRESS] ("Client") **Developer:** [YOUR LEGAL NAME / COMPANY], [ADDRESS] ("Developer") --- ## 1. SERVICES Developer agrees to design, develop, and deliver: **Project:** [PROJECT NAME] **Description:** [1-3 sentence scope] **Deliverables:** - [Deliverable 1] due [DATE] - [Deliverable 2] due [DATE] - [Deliverable 3] due [DATE] ## 2. PAYMENT **Total Fee:** [CURRENCY] [AMOUNT] | Milestone | Amount | Due | |-----------|--------|-----| | Contract signing | 50% | Upon execution | | Beta delivery | 25% | [DATE] | | Final acceptance | 25% | Within 5 days of acceptance | Late payments accrue interest at 1.5% per month. Client has [10] business days to accept or reject deliverables in writing. ## 3. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY Upon receipt of full payment, Developer assigns all right, title, and interest in the Work Product to Client as a work made for hire (US) / by assignment of future copyright (EU/UK). Developer retains the right to display Work Product in portfolio unless Client requests confidentiality in writing within [30] days of delivery. Pre-existing IP (tools, libraries, frameworks) remains Developer's property. Developer grants Client a perpetual, royalty-free license to use pre-existing IP as embedded in the Work Product. ## 4. CONFIDENTIALITY Each party keeps confidential all non-public information received from the other. This obligation survives termination for [3] years. ## 5. WARRANTIES Developer warrants Work Product will substantially conform to specifications for [90] days post-delivery. Developer will fix material defects at no charge during this period. EXCEPT AS STATED, WORK PRODUCT IS PROVIDED "AS IS." ## 6. LIABILITY Developer's total liability shall not exceed total fees paid under this Agreement. Neither party liable for indirect, incidental, or consequential damages. ## 7. TERMINATION For Cause: Either party may terminate if the other materially breaches and fails to cure within [14] days of written notice. For Convenience: Client may terminate with [30] days written notice and pay for all work completed plus [10%] of remaining contract value. ## 8. DISPUTE RESOLUTION US: Binding arbitration under AAA Commercial Rules, [CITY], Delaware law. EU/DACH: ICC / DIS arbitration, [CITY]. German / English law. UK: LCIA Rules, London. English law. ## 9. GENERAL - Entire Agreement: Supersedes all prior discussions. - Amendments: Must be in writing, signed by both parties. - Independent Contractor: Developer is not an employee of Client. --- CLIENT: _________________________ Date: _________ [CLIENT NAME], [TITLE] DEVELOPER: _________________________ Date: _________ [YOUR NAME], [TITLE] ``` --- ## Template B: Monthly Consulting Retainer ```markdown # CONSULTING RETAINER AGREEMENT **Effective Date:** [DATE] **Client:** [CLIENT LEGAL NAME] ("Client") **Consultant:** [YOUR NAME / COMPANY] ("Consultant") --- ## 1. SERVICES Consultant provides [DOMAIN, e.g., "CTO advisory and technical architecture"] services. **Monthly Hours:** Up to [X] hours/month **Rollover:** Unused hours [do / do not] roll over (max [X] hours banked) **Overflow Rate:** [CURRENCY] [RATE]/hr for hours exceeding retainer ## 2. FEES **Monthly Retainer:** [CURRENCY] [AMOUNT], due on the 1st of each month. **Payment Method:** Bank transfer / Stripe / SEPA direct debit **Late Payment:** 2% monthly interest after [10]-day grace period. ## 3. TERM AND TERMINATION **Initial Term:** [3] months starting [DATE] **Renewal:** Auto-renews monthly unless either party gives [30] days written notice. **Immediate termination:** For material breach uncured after [7] days notice. On termination, Consultant delivers all work in progress within [5] business days. ## 4. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY Work product created under this Agreement belongs to [Client / Consultant / jointly]. Advisory output (recommendations, analyses) are Client property upon full payment. ## 5. EXCLUSIVITY [OPTION A - Non-exclusive:] This Agreement is non-exclusive. Consultant may work with other clients. [OPTION B - Partial exclusivity:] Consultant will not work with direct competitors of Client during the term and [90] days thereafter. ## 6. CONFIDENTIALITY AND DATA PROTECTION EU/DACH: If Consultant processes personal data on behalf of Client, the parties shall execute a Data Processing Agreement (DPA) per Art. 28 GDPR. ## 7. LIABILITY Consultant's aggregate liability is capped at [3x] the fees paid in the [3] months preceding the claim. --- Signatures as above. ``` --- ## Template C: SaaS Partnership Agreement ```markdown # SAAS PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT **Effective Date:** [DATE] **Provider:** [NAME], [ADDRESS] **Partner:** [NAME], [ADDRESS] --- ## 1. PURPOSE Provider grants Partner [reseller / referral / white-label / integration] rights to Provider's [PRODUCT NAME] ("Software") subject to this Agreement. ## 2. PARTNERSHIP TYPE [ ] Referral: Partner refers customers; earns [X%] of first-year ARR per referral. [ ] Reseller: Partner resells licenses; earns [X%] discount off list price. [ ] White-label: Partner rebrands Software; pays [AMOUNT]/month platform fee. [ ] Integration: Partner integrates Software via API; terms in Exhibit A. ## 3. REVENUE SHARE | Tier | Monthly ARR Referred | Commission | |------|---------------------|------------| | Bronze | < $10,000 | [X]% | | Silver | $10,000-$50,000 | [X]% | | Gold | > $50,000 | [X]% | Payout: Net-30 after month close, minimum $[500] threshold. ## 4. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY Each party retains all IP in its own products. No implied licenses. Partner may use Provider's marks per Provider's Brand Guidelines (Exhibit B). ## 5. DATA AND PRIVACY Each party is an independent data controller for its own customers. Joint processing requires a separate DPA (Exhibit C - EU/DACH projects). ## 6. TERM Initial: [12] months. Renews annually unless [90]-day written notice given. Termination for Cause: [30]-day cure period for material breach. ## 7. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY Each party's liability capped at [1x] fees paid/received in prior [12] months. Mutual indemnification for IP infringement claims from own products. --- Signatures, exhibits, and governing law per applicable jurisdiction. ``` --- ## GDPR Data Processing Addendum (EU/DACH Clause Block) ```markdown ## DATA PROCESSING ADDENDUM (Art. 28 GDPR) Controller: [CLIENT NAME] Processor: [CONTRACTOR NAME] ### Subject Matter Processor processes personal data on behalf of Controller solely to perform services under the main Agreement. ### Categories of Data Subjects [e.g., end users, employees, customers] ### Categories of Personal Data [e.g., names, email addresses, usage data] ### Processing Duration For the term of the main Agreement; deletion within [30] days of termination. ### Processor Obligations - Process data only on Controller's documented instructions - Ensure persons authorized to process have committed to confidentiality - Implement technical and organizational measures per Art. 32 GDPR - Assist Controller with data subject rights requests - Not engage sub-processors without prior written consent - Delete or return all personal data upon termination ### Sub-processors (current as of Effective Date) | Sub-processor | Location | Purpose | |--------------|----------|---------| | [AWS / GCP / Azure] | [Region] | Cloud hosting | | [Other] | [Location] | [Purpose] | ### Cross-border Transfers Data transfers outside EEA covered by: [ ] SCCs [ ] Adequacy Decision [ ] BCRs ``` --- ## Common Pitfalls 1. **Missing IP assignment language** - "work for hire" alone is insufficient in EU; need explicit assignment of Nutzungsrechte in DACH 2. **Vague acceptance criteria** - Always define what "accepted" means (written sign-off, X days to reject) 3. **No change order process** - Scope creep kills fixed-price projects; add a clause for out-of-scope work 4. **Jurisdiction mismatch** - Choosing Delaware law for a German-only project creates enforcement problems 5. **Missing limitation of liability** - Without a cap, one bug could mean unlimited damages 6. **Oral amendments** - Contracts modified verbally are hard to enforce; always require written amendments --- ## Best Practices - Use **milestone payments** over net-30 for projects >$10K - reduces cash flow risk - For EU/DACH: always check if a DPA is needed (any personal data = yes) - For DACH: include a **Schriftformklausel** (written form clause) explicitly - Add a **force majeure** clause for anything over 3 months - For retainers: define response time SLAs (e.g., 4h urgent / 24h normal) - Keep templates in version control; track changes with `git diff` - Review annually - laws change, especially GDPR enforcement interpretations - For NDAs: always specify the return/destruction of confidential materials on termination FILE:customer-success-manager/SKILL.md --- name: "customer-success-manager" description: Monitors customer health, predicts churn risk, and identifies expansion opportunities using weighted scoring models for SaaS customer success. Use when analyzing customer accounts, reviewing retention metrics, scoring at-risk customers, or when the user mentions churn, customer health scores, upsell opportunities, expansion revenue, retention analysis, or customer analytics. Runs three Python CLI tools to produce deterministic health scores, churn risk tiers, and prioritized expansion recommendations across Enterprise, Mid-Market, and SMB segments. license: MIT metadata: version: 1.0.0 author: Alireza Rezvani category: business-growth domain: customer-success updated: 2026-02-06 python-tools: health_score_calculator.py, churn_risk_analyzer.py, expansion_opportunity_scorer.py tech-stack: customer-success, saas-metrics, health-scoring --- # Customer Success Manager Production-grade customer success analytics with multi-dimensional health scoring, churn risk prediction, and expansion opportunity identification. Three Python CLI tools provide deterministic, repeatable analysis using standard library only -- no external dependencies, no API calls, no ML models. --- ## Table of Contents - [Input Requirements](#input-requirements) - [Output Formats](#output-formats) - [How to Use](#how-to-use) - [Scripts](#scripts) - [Reference Guides](#reference-guides) - [Templates](#templates) - [Best Practices](#best-practices) - [Limitations](#limitations) --- ## Input Requirements All scripts accept a JSON file as positional input argument. See `assets/sample_customer_data.json` for complete schema examples and sample data. ### Health Score Calculator Required fields per customer object: `customer_id`, `name`, `segment`, `arr`, and nested objects `usage` (login_frequency, feature_adoption, dau_mau_ratio), `engagement` (support_ticket_volume, meeting_attendance, nps_score, csat_score), `support` (open_tickets, escalation_rate, avg_resolution_hours), `relationship` (executive_sponsor_engagement, multi_threading_depth, renewal_sentiment), and `previous_period` scores for trend analysis. ### Churn Risk Analyzer Required fields per customer object: `customer_id`, `name`, `segment`, `arr`, `contract_end_date`, and nested objects `usage_decline`, `engagement_drop`, `support_issues`, `relationship_signals`, and `commercial_factors`. ### Expansion Opportunity Scorer Required fields per customer object: `customer_id`, `name`, `segment`, `arr`, and nested objects `contract` (licensed_seats, active_seats, plan_tier, available_tiers), `product_usage` (per-module adoption flags and usage percentages), and `departments` (current and potential). --- ## Output Formats All scripts support two output formats via the `--format` flag: - **`text`** (default): Human-readable formatted output for terminal viewing - **`json`**: Machine-readable JSON output for integrations and pipelines --- ## How to Use ### Quick Start ```bash # Health scoring python scripts/health_score_calculator.py assets/sample_customer_data.json python scripts/health_score_calculator.py assets/sample_customer_data.json --format json # Churn risk analysis python scripts/churn_risk_analyzer.py assets/sample_customer_data.json python scripts/churn_risk_analyzer.py assets/sample_customer_data.json --format json # Expansion opportunity scoring python scripts/expansion_opportunity_scorer.py assets/sample_customer_data.json python scripts/expansion_opportunity_scorer.py assets/sample_customer_data.json --format json ``` ### Workflow Integration ```bash # 1. Score customer health across portfolio python scripts/health_score_calculator.py customer_portfolio.json --format json > health_results.json # Verify: confirm health_results.json contains the expected number of customer records before continuing # 2. Identify at-risk accounts python scripts/churn_risk_analyzer.py customer_portfolio.json --format json > risk_results.json # Verify: confirm risk_results.json is non-empty and risk tiers are present for each customer # 3. Find expansion opportunities in healthy accounts python scripts/expansion_opportunity_scorer.py customer_portfolio.json --format json > expansion_results.json # Verify: confirm expansion_results.json lists opportunities ranked by priority # 4. Prepare QBR using templates # Reference: assets/qbr_template.md ``` **Error handling:** If a script exits with an error, check that: - The input JSON matches the required schema for that script (see Input Requirements above) - All required fields are present and correctly typed - Python 3.7+ is being used (`python --version`) - Output files from prior steps are non-empty before piping into subsequent steps --- ## Scripts ### 1. health_score_calculator.py **Purpose:** Multi-dimensional customer health scoring with trend analysis and segment-aware benchmarking. **Dimensions and Weights:** | Dimension | Weight | Metrics | |-----------|--------|---------| | Usage | 30% | Login frequency, feature adoption, DAU/MAU ratio | | Engagement | 25% | Support ticket volume, meeting attendance, NPS/CSAT | | Support | 20% | Open tickets, escalation rate, avg resolution time | | Relationship | 25% | Executive sponsor engagement, multi-threading depth, renewal sentiment | **Classification:** - Green (75-100): Healthy -- customer achieving value - Yellow (50-74): Needs attention -- monitor closely - Red (0-49): At risk -- immediate intervention required **Usage:** ```bash python scripts/health_score_calculator.py customer_data.json python scripts/health_score_calculator.py customer_data.json --format json ``` ### 2. churn_risk_analyzer.py **Purpose:** Identify at-risk accounts with behavioral signal detection and tier-based intervention recommendations. **Risk Signal Weights:** | Signal Category | Weight | Indicators | |----------------|--------|------------| | Usage Decline | 30% | Login trend, feature adoption change, DAU/MAU change | | Engagement Drop | 25% | Meeting cancellations, response time, NPS change | | Support Issues | 20% | Open escalations, unresolved critical, satisfaction trend | | Relationship Signals | 15% | Champion left, sponsor change, competitor mentions | | Commercial Factors | 10% | Contract type, pricing complaints, budget cuts | **Risk Tiers:** - Critical (80-100): Immediate executive escalation - High (60-79): Urgent CSM intervention - Medium (40-59): Proactive outreach - Low (0-39): Standard monitoring **Usage:** ```bash python scripts/churn_risk_analyzer.py customer_data.json python scripts/churn_risk_analyzer.py customer_data.json --format json ``` ### 3. expansion_opportunity_scorer.py **Purpose:** Identify upsell, cross-sell, and expansion opportunities with revenue estimation and priority ranking. **Expansion Types:** - **Upsell**: Upgrade to higher tier or more of existing product - **Cross-sell**: Add new product modules - **Expansion**: Additional seats or departments **Usage:** ```bash python scripts/expansion_opportunity_scorer.py customer_data.json python scripts/expansion_opportunity_scorer.py customer_data.json --format json ``` --- ## Reference Guides | Reference | Description | |-----------|-------------| | `references/health-scoring-framework.md` | Complete health scoring methodology, dimension definitions, weighting rationale, threshold calibration | | `references/cs-playbooks.md` | Intervention playbooks for each risk tier, onboarding, renewal, expansion, and escalation procedures | | `references/cs-metrics-benchmarks.md` | Industry benchmarks for NRR, GRR, churn rates, health scores, expansion rates by segment and industry | --- ## Templates | Template | Purpose | |----------|---------| | `assets/qbr_template.md` | Quarterly Business Review presentation structure | | `assets/success_plan_template.md` | Customer success plan with goals, milestones, and metrics | | `assets/onboarding_checklist_template.md` | 90-day onboarding checklist with phase gates | | `assets/executive_business_review_template.md` | Executive stakeholder review for strategic accounts | --- ## Best Practices 1. **Combine signals**: Use all three scripts together for a complete customer picture 2. **Act on trends, not snapshots**: A declining Green is more urgent than a stable Yellow 3. **Calibrate thresholds**: Adjust segment benchmarks based on your product and industry per `references/health-scoring-framework.md` 4. **Prepare with data**: Run scripts before every QBR and executive meeting; reference `references/cs-playbooks.md` for intervention guidance --- ## Limitations - **No real-time data**: Scripts analyze point-in-time snapshots from JSON input files - **No CRM integration**: Data must be exported manually from your CRM/CS platform - **Deterministic only**: No predictive ML -- scoring is algorithmic based on weighted signals - **Threshold tuning**: Default thresholds are industry-standard but may need calibration for your business - **Revenue estimates**: Expansion revenue estimates are approximations based on usage patterns --- **Last Updated:** February 2026 **Tools:** 3 Python CLI tools **Dependencies:** Python 3.7+ standard library only FILE:customer-success-manager/assets/executive_business_review_template.md # Executive Business Review **Customer:** [Customer Name] **Date:** [Review Date] **Prepared for:** [Executive Name, Title] **Prepared by:** [CSM Name] | [VP Customer Success Name] **Classification:** [Strategic / Enterprise / Key Account] --- ## 1. Partnership Summary | Metric | Value | |--------|-------| | Partnership Duration | [X months/years] | | Current ARR | $[Amount] | | Lifetime Value to Date | $[Amount] | | Current Plan | [Tier] | | Licensed Seats | [Number] | | Active Seats | [Number] | | Health Score | [Score]/100 ([Green/Yellow/Red]) | | NPS Score | [Score] | | Renewal Date | [Date] ([X] days remaining) | --- ## 2. Strategic Alignment ### Customer's Business Priorities (This Year) 1. **[Priority 1]** -- [How our solution supports this] 2. **[Priority 2]** -- [How our solution supports this] 3. **[Priority 3]** -- [How our solution supports this] ### Alignment Assessment | Business Priority | Our Contribution | Alignment Score | |-------------------|-----------------|----------------| | [Priority 1] | [Specific contribution] | [Strong / Moderate / Weak] | | [Priority 2] | [Specific contribution] | [Strong / Moderate / Weak] | | [Priority 3] | [Specific contribution] | [Strong / Moderate / Weak] | --- ## 3. Value Delivered ### Quantified Business Impact | Outcome | Metric | Before | After | Business Value | |---------|--------|--------|-------|---------------| | [e.g., Operational efficiency] | [Hours saved/week] | [Baseline] | [Current] | $[Estimated value] | | [e.g., Revenue acceleration] | [Deal velocity] | [Baseline] | [Current] | $[Estimated value] | | [e.g., Risk reduction] | [Error rate] | [Baseline] | [Current] | $[Estimated value] | **Total Estimated Business Value:** $[Amount] **ROI:** [X]x return on investment ### Key Achievements This Period 1. [Achievement 1 with measurable outcome] 2. [Achievement 2 with measurable outcome] 3. [Achievement 3 with measurable outcome] --- ## 4. Adoption and Engagement Scorecard ### Platform Utilisation | Module | Adoption Status | Usage Depth | Benchmark | Assessment | |--------|---------------|-------------|-----------|------------| | [Module 1] | Fully Adopted | [High/Med/Low] | [Benchmark] | [Above/At/Below] | | [Module 2] | Partially Adopted | [High/Med/Low] | [Benchmark] | [Above/At/Below] | | [Module 3] | Not Adopted | -- | -- | Opportunity | ### Engagement Health | Indicator | Current | Previous Period | Trend | |-----------|---------|----------------|-------| | Executive Engagement | [Score] | [Score] | [Up/Down/Stable] | | Stakeholder Breadth | [# contacts] | [# contacts] | [Up/Down/Stable] | | Meeting Participation | [%] | [%] | [Up/Down/Stable] | | Feature Request Activity | [Count] | [Count] | [Up/Down/Stable] | --- ## 5. Account Health Overview ### Health Score Trend (Last 4 Quarters) | Quarter | Overall | Usage | Engagement | Support | Relationship | |---------|---------|-------|------------|---------|-------------| | [Q-3] | [Score] | [Score] | [Score] | [Score] | [Score] | | [Q-2] | [Score] | [Score] | [Score] | [Score] | [Score] | | [Q-1] | [Score] | [Score] | [Score] | [Score] | [Score] | | Current | [Score] | [Score] | [Score] | [Score] | [Score] | ### Risk Assessment | Risk Factor | Level | Details | Mitigation | |------------|-------|---------|-----------| | [Risk 1] | [High/Med/Low] | [Description] | [Action] | | [Risk 2] | [High/Med/Low] | [Description] | [Action] | --- ## 6. Support and Service Quality | Metric | This Period | SLA Target | Status | |--------|------------|-----------|--------| | Total Tickets | [Number] | -- | | | Avg First Response | [Hours] | [Hours] | [Met / Not Met] | | Avg Resolution Time | [Hours] | [Hours] | [Met / Not Met] | | Escalations | [Number] | 0 | | | CSAT Score | [Score] | [Target] | [Above / Below] | | Critical Issues | [Number] | 0 | | ### Notable Support Interactions - [Summary of any significant support events and resolution] --- ## 7. Product Roadmap Alignment ### Features Delivered (Relevant to This Customer) | Feature | Release Date | Customer Impact | |---------|-------------|----------------| | [Feature 1] | [Date] | [How it helps them] | | [Feature 2] | [Date] | [How it helps them] | ### Upcoming Features (Customer-Relevant) | Feature | Expected Release | Expected Impact | |---------|-----------------|----------------| | [Feature 1] | [Quarter] | [Business value] | | [Feature 2] | [Quarter] | [Business value] | ### Customer Feature Requests | Request | Priority | Status | Business Case | |---------|----------|--------|--------------| | [Request 1] | [P1/P2/P3] | [Status] | [Why it matters] | | [Request 2] | [P1/P2/P3] | [Status] | [Why it matters] | --- ## 8. Growth and Expansion Opportunity ### Current Whitespace Analysis | Opportunity | Type | Est. Revenue | Effort | Priority | |------------|------|-------------|--------|----------| | [Opportunity 1] | [Upsell/Cross-sell/Expansion] | $[Amount] | [Low/Med/High] | [1-5] | | [Opportunity 2] | [Upsell/Cross-sell/Expansion] | $[Amount] | [Low/Med/High] | [1-5] | | [Opportunity 3] | [Upsell/Cross-sell/Expansion] | $[Amount] | [Low/Med/High] | [1-5] | **Total Expansion Opportunity:** $[Amount] ### Recommended Next Steps for Growth 1. [Specific expansion recommendation with business justification] 2. [Specific expansion recommendation with business justification] --- ## 9. Renewal Outlook | Factor | Assessment | |--------|-----------| | Overall Renewal Confidence | [High / Medium / Low] | | Budget Availability | [Confirmed / Expected / Uncertain] | | Sponsor Support | [Strong / Moderate / Weak] | | Competitive Threat | [None / Low / Medium / High] | | Value Perception | [Strong / Moderate / Weak] | | Contract Satisfaction | [Satisfied / Neutral / Concerned] | ### Renewal Strategy [2-3 sentences on the approach for securing renewal, including any specific actions needed] --- ## 10. Executive-Level Action Items | Action | Owner | Due Date | Priority | Impact | |--------|-------|----------|----------|--------| | [Action 1] | [Name, Title] | [Date] | [Critical/High/Med] | [Expected outcome] | | [Action 2] | [Name, Title] | [Date] | [Critical/High/Med] | [Expected outcome] | | [Action 3] | [Name, Title] | [Date] | [Critical/High/Med] | [Expected outcome] | --- ## Appendix ### Stakeholder Map | Name | Title | Influence | Sentiment | Last Contact | |------|-------|-----------|-----------|-------------| | [Name] | [Title] | [Decision Maker / Influencer / User] | [Positive / Neutral / Negative] | [Date] | | [Name] | [Title] | [Decision Maker / Influencer / User] | [Positive / Neutral / Negative] | [Date] | ### Competitive Landscape (If Applicable) - **Known competitors in evaluation:** [List] - **Our differentiators:** [Key strengths vs. competition] - **Risk mitigation:** [Actions to defend position] --- **Confidential -- For Internal and Customer Executive Use Only** **Next Executive Review:** [Date] FILE:customer-success-manager/assets/expected_output.json { "report": "customer_health_scores", "summary": { "total_customers": 4, "average_score": 78.8, "green_count": 3, "yellow_count": 1, "red_count": 0 }, "customers": [ { "customer_id": "CUST-001", "name": "Acme Corp", "segment": "enterprise", "arr": 120000, "overall_score": 86.2, "classification": "green", "dimensions": { "usage": { "score": 91.6, "weight": "30%", "classification": "green" }, "engagement": { "score": 82.0, "weight": "25%", "classification": "green" }, "support": { "score": 78.5, "weight": "20%", "classification": "green" }, "relationship": { "score": 90.1, "weight": "25%", "classification": "green" } }, "trends": { "usage": "improving", "engagement": "improving", "support": "stable", "relationship": "improving", "overall": "improving" }, "recommendations": [] }, { "customer_id": "CUST-002", "name": "TechStart Inc", "segment": "smb", "arr": 18000, "overall_score": 53.7, "classification": "yellow", "dimensions": { "usage": { "score": 52.5, "weight": "30%", "classification": "yellow" }, "engagement": { "score": 61.6, "weight": "25%", "classification": "yellow" }, "support": { "score": 63.2, "weight": "20%", "classification": "yellow" }, "relationship": { "score": 39.5, "weight": "25%", "classification": "red" } }, "trends": { "usage": "stable", "engagement": "improving", "support": "stable", "relationship": "declining", "overall": "stable" }, "recommendations": [ "Login frequency below target -- schedule product engagement session", "NPS below threshold -- conduct a feedback deep-dive with customer", "CSAT is critically low -- escalate to support leadership", "Single-threaded relationship -- expand contacts across departments", "Renewal sentiment is negative -- initiate save plan immediately" ] }, { "customer_id": "CUST-003", "name": "GlobalTrade Solutions", "segment": "mid-market", "arr": 55000, "overall_score": 79.7, "classification": "green", "dimensions": { "usage": { "score": 85.6, "weight": "30%", "classification": "green" }, "engagement": { "score": 79.6, "weight": "25%", "classification": "green" }, "support": { "score": 72.0, "weight": "20%", "classification": "green" }, "relationship": { "score": 79.0, "weight": "25%", "classification": "green" } }, "trends": { "usage": "improving", "engagement": "improving", "support": "improving", "relationship": "improving", "overall": "improving" }, "recommendations": [] }, { "customer_id": "CUST-004", "name": "HealthFirst Medical", "segment": "enterprise", "arr": 200000, "overall_score": 95.7, "classification": "green", "dimensions": { "usage": { "score": 100.0, "weight": "30%", "classification": "green" }, "engagement": { "score": 92.0, "weight": "25%", "classification": "green" }, "support": { "score": 88.7, "weight": "20%", "classification": "green" }, "relationship": { "score": 100.0, "weight": "25%", "classification": "green" } }, "trends": { "usage": "improving", "engagement": "improving", "support": "stable", "relationship": "improving", "overall": "improving" }, "recommendations": [] } ] } FILE:customer-success-manager/assets/onboarding_checklist_template.md # Customer Onboarding Checklist (90-Day) **Customer:** [Customer Name] **Segment:** [Enterprise / Mid-Market / SMB] **CSM:** [CSM Name] **Kickoff Date:** [Date] **Target Go-Live:** [Date] **Target First Value Date:** [Date -- must be within 30 days] --- ## Phase 1: Welcome and Setup (Days 1-14) ### Pre-Kickoff Preparation (Day 0) - [ ] Review signed contract and SOW for scope and commitments - [ ] Research customer's industry, business model, and competitive landscape - [ ] Review handoff notes from sales team (pain points, decision drivers, stakeholders) - [ ] Prepare welcome package (login credentials, documentation links, support contacts) - [ ] Create customer workspace in CS platform - [ ] Schedule kickoff meeting with all required attendees - [ ] Prepare kickoff deck with agenda and success plan draft ### Kickoff Meeting (Day 1-2) - [ ] Conduct kickoff meeting with customer stakeholders - [ ] Confirm business objectives and success criteria - [ ] Identify key stakeholders and their roles (sponsor, champion, technical lead, users) - [ ] Align on communication cadence and preferred channels - [ ] Review onboarding timeline and milestones - [ ] Set expectations for time commitment from customer team - [ ] Share and agree on success plan (mutual accountability) - [ ] Schedule recurring check-in meetings **Kickoff Meeting Notes:** > [Document key takeaways, concerns raised, decisions made] ### Technical Setup (Days 3-7) - [ ] Provision customer environment (tenant, workspace, permissions) - [ ] Configure SSO/authentication if applicable - [ ] Set up integrations with customer's existing tools - [ ] Import or migrate existing data (if applicable) - [ ] Validate data integrity post-migration - [ ] Configure role-based access and permissions - [ ] Set up monitoring and alerting **Technical Setup Owner:** [SE / Implementation team name] **Technical Setup Notes:** > [Document configuration decisions, customizations, issues] ### Admin Training (Days 7-10) - [ ] Deliver admin training session (system configuration, user management) - [ ] Provide admin documentation and quick reference guide - [ ] Ensure admins can independently manage basic operations - [ ] Set up admin support escalation path ### Initial User Training (Days 10-14) - [ ] Deliver core user training (session 1: basic navigation and key workflows) - [ ] Provide user quickstart guide and video resources - [ ] Set up user support channel (Slack, email, in-app chat) - [ ] Confirm all target users have active accounts - [ ] Track initial login completion rate **Training Completion Rate:** [___%] of target users --- ## Phase 2: Activation (Days 15-30) ### User Activation (Days 15-20) - [ ] Monitor daily active user metrics - [ ] Follow up with users who have not logged in - [ ] Conduct follow-up training for users needing additional help - [ ] Address any usability issues or confusion reported - [ ] Validate that core workflows are functioning as expected - [ ] Collect early feedback from champion and key users **Activation Rate:** [___%] of licensed users active ### First Value Milestone (Days 20-30) - [ ] Define and track first value milestone (specific to customer objectives) - [ ] Verify customer has completed their first meaningful workflow - [ ] Document value delivered (even if small -- establish the pattern) - [ ] Share "first win" with executive sponsor - [ ] Celebrate the milestone with the customer team **First Value Milestone:** [Describe the specific milestone] **Date Achieved:** [Date] ### 30-Day Review (Day 28-30) - [ ] Conduct 30-day review meeting with customer - [ ] Review activation metrics (logins, usage, adoption) - [ ] Assess progress against success plan milestones - [ ] Identify any blockers or concerns - [ ] Adjust onboarding plan if needed - [ ] Confirm transition from setup phase to adoption phase - [ ] Set goals for days 31-60 **30-Day Health Score:** [Score]/100 -- [Green/Yellow/Red] --- ## Phase 3: Adoption (Days 31-60) ### Feature Expansion (Days 31-45) - [ ] Introduce additional features beyond core workflows - [ ] Deliver advanced training session (session 2: power features) - [ ] Enable at least one integration with customer's existing tools - [ ] Identify and address feature adoption gaps - [ ] Share best practices from similar customers ### Usage Benchmarking (Days 45-55) - [ ] Compare customer's usage against segment benchmarks - [ ] Identify underperforming areas and create enablement plan - [ ] Share usage report with customer champion - [ ] Discuss usage targets for the next 30 days **Current vs. Benchmark:** | Metric | Current | Benchmark | Gap | |--------|---------|-----------|-----| | Feature Adoption | [%] | [%] | [+/-] | | Daily Active Users | [#] | [#] | [+/-] | | Key Workflow Completion | [%] | [%] | [+/-] | ### 60-Day Check-in (Day 55-60) - [ ] Conduct 60-day check-in meeting - [ ] Review adoption metrics and progress - [ ] Discuss any roadblocks to deeper adoption - [ ] Begin identifying advanced use cases - [ ] Set goals for days 61-90 --- ## Phase 4: Optimisation (Days 61-90) ### Advanced Use Cases (Days 61-75) - [ ] Conduct use case discovery workshop with customer - [ ] Identify 2-3 advanced use cases beyond initial scope - [ ] Build implementation plan for advanced use cases - [ ] Begin pilot of advanced use cases with power users ### ROI Measurement (Days 75-85) - [ ] Collect data for ROI measurement against baseline - [ ] Build ROI summary document - [ ] Share ROI results with executive sponsor - [ ] Document customer testimonial or case study opportunity (if willing) **ROI Summary:** | Metric | Baseline | Current | Improvement | |--------|----------|---------|-------------| | [Metric 1] | [Value] | [Value] | [% change] | | [Metric 2] | [Value] | [Value] | [% change] | ### 90-Day Executive Review (Days 85-90) - [ ] Prepare 90-day executive review presentation - [ ] Include: value delivered, adoption metrics, ROI, next steps - [ ] Conduct review meeting with executive sponsor - [ ] Transition from onboarding to ongoing success management - [ ] Establish ongoing success plan with quarterly milestones - [ ] Confirm ongoing meeting cadence - [ ] Introduce expansion opportunities if appropriate **90-Day Health Score:** [Score]/100 -- [Green/Yellow/Red] --- ## Onboarding Completion Gate The following criteria must be met to consider onboarding complete: - [ ] User activation rate above 80% - [ ] First value milestone achieved within 30 days - [ ] Core workflows actively used by target users - [ ] Executive sponsor confirms satisfaction - [ ] Health score is Yellow (50+) or better - [ ] Success plan established with ongoing milestones - [ ] Recurring meeting cadence confirmed - [ ] Support escalation path understood by customer **Onboarding Status:** [Complete / In Progress / Blocked] **Completion Date:** [Date] **Handoff to Steady-State CSM:** [Date if different CSM] --- ## Notes ### Risks and Blockers | Risk/Blocker | Impact | Mitigation | Status | |-------------|--------|-----------|--------| | [Item] | [High/Med/Low] | [Action] | [Open/Resolved] | ### Key Decisions | Date | Decision | Made By | Impact | |------|----------|---------|--------| | [Date] | [Decision] | [Name] | [Description] | --- **Template Version:** 1.0 **Last Updated:** February 2026 FILE:customer-success-manager/assets/qbr_template.md # Quarterly Business Review (QBR) **Customer:** [Customer Name] **Date:** [QBR Date] **Prepared by:** [CSM Name] **Attendees:** [List attendees and titles] --- ## 1. Executive Summary **Overall Relationship Status:** [Green / Yellow / Red] **Health Score:** [Score]/100 **Key Theme:** [One sentence summarizing the quarter] ### Quarter Highlights - [Highlight 1: major achievement or milestone] - [Highlight 2: value delivered] - [Highlight 3: initiative completed] ### Areas of Focus - [Focus area 1] - [Focus area 2] --- ## 2. Value Delivered This Quarter ### Business Outcomes Achieved | Objective | Target | Actual | Status | |-----------|--------|--------|--------| | [Objective 1] | [Target metric] | [Actual metric] | [On Track / At Risk / Achieved] | | [Objective 2] | [Target metric] | [Actual metric] | [On Track / At Risk / Achieved] | | [Objective 3] | [Target metric] | [Actual metric] | [On Track / At Risk / Achieved] | ### ROI Summary | Metric | Before | After | Improvement | |--------|--------|-------|-------------| | [Metric 1, e.g., Time savings] | [Baseline] | [Current] | [% change] | | [Metric 2, e.g., Cost reduction] | [Baseline] | [Current] | [% change] | | [Metric 3, e.g., Revenue impact] | [Baseline] | [Current] | [% change] | **Estimated Total Value Delivered:** $[Amount] --- ## 3. Product Usage and Adoption ### Usage Metrics | Metric | Last Quarter | This Quarter | Trend | |--------|-------------|--------------|-------| | Monthly Active Users | [Number] | [Number] | [Up/Down/Stable] | | Feature Adoption Rate | [%] | [%] | [Up/Down/Stable] | | DAU/MAU Ratio | [Ratio] | [Ratio] | [Up/Down/Stable] | | Seat Utilization | [%] | [%] | [Up/Down/Stable] | ### Feature Adoption Breakdown | Feature/Module | Status | Usage Level | Notes | |---------------|--------|-------------|-------| | [Feature 1] | Active | [High/Med/Low] | | | [Feature 2] | Active | [High/Med/Low] | | | [Feature 3] | Not Adopted | -- | [Reason / Opportunity] | ### Adoption Recommendations 1. [Recommendation for increasing adoption of underused features] 2. [Recommendation for enabling new use cases] --- ## 4. Support Summary | Metric | This Quarter | Previous Quarter | Benchmark | |--------|-------------|-----------------|-----------| | Total Tickets | [Number] | [Number] | [Segment avg] | | Avg Resolution Time | [Hours] | [Hours] | [SLA target] | | Escalations | [Number] | [Number] | [Target: 0] | | CSAT Score | [Score] | [Score] | [Target] | ### Open Issues | Issue | Priority | Status | ETA | |-------|----------|--------|-----| | [Issue 1] | [P1/P2/P3] | [In Progress / Pending] | [Date] | --- ## 5. Success Plan Progress ### Current Success Plan Goals | Goal | Timeline | Progress | Status | |------|----------|----------|--------| | [Goal 1] | [Date] | [%] | [On Track / At Risk / Complete] | | [Goal 2] | [Date] | [%] | [On Track / At Risk / Complete] | | [Goal 3] | [Date] | [%] | [On Track / At Risk / Complete] | ### Next Quarter Goals (Proposed) 1. [Goal 1 with specific measurable outcome] 2. [Goal 2 with specific measurable outcome] 3. [Goal 3 with specific measurable outcome] --- ## 6. Product Roadmap Highlights ### Recently Released (Relevant to [Customer Name]) - [Feature/enhancement 1] -- [How it benefits them] - [Feature/enhancement 2] -- [How it benefits them] ### Coming Next Quarter - [Upcoming feature 1] -- [Expected benefit] - [Upcoming feature 2] -- [Expected benefit] ### Feature Requests Status | Request | Priority | Status | Expected Release | |---------|----------|--------|-----------------| | [Request 1] | [High/Med/Low] | [Planned / In Development / Under Review] | [Quarter] | --- ## 7. Growth Opportunities ### Expansion Discussion Points - [Opportunity 1: e.g., additional seats for new team] - [Opportunity 2: e.g., new module that addresses identified need] - [Opportunity 3: e.g., tier upgrade for advanced capabilities] ### Estimated Value of Expansion: $[Amount] additional ARR --- ## 8. Action Items | Action | Owner | Due Date | Priority | |--------|-------|----------|----------| | [Action 1] | [Name] | [Date] | [High/Med/Low] | | [Action 2] | [Name] | [Date] | [High/Med/Low] | | [Action 3] | [Name] | [Date] | [High/Med/Low] | | [Action 4] | [Name] | [Date] | [High/Med/Low] | --- ## 9. Contract and Renewal **Contract Start:** [Date] **Renewal Date:** [Date] **Current ARR:** $[Amount] **Days to Renewal:** [Number] ### Renewal Readiness - [ ] Value documented and communicated - [ ] Executive sponsor aligned - [ ] Open issues resolved or plan in place - [ ] Pricing and terms discussed - [ ] Expansion proposal prepared (if applicable) --- **Next QBR Date:** [Date] **Next Check-in:** [Date] FILE:customer-success-manager/assets/sample_customer_data.json { "customers": [ { "customer_id": "CUST-001", "name": "Acme Corp", "segment": "enterprise", "arr": 120000, "contract_end_date": "2026-12-31", "usage": { "login_frequency": 85, "feature_adoption": 72, "dau_mau_ratio": 0.45 }, "engagement": { "support_ticket_volume": 3, "meeting_attendance": 90, "nps_score": 8, "csat_score": 4.2 }, "support": { "open_tickets": 2, "escalation_rate": 0.05, "avg_resolution_hours": 18 }, "relationship": { "executive_sponsor_engagement": 80, "multi_threading_depth": 4, "renewal_sentiment": "positive" }, "previous_period": { "usage_score": 70, "engagement_score": 65, "support_score": 75, "relationship_score": 60, "overall_score": 67 }, "usage_decline": { "login_trend": 5, "feature_adoption_change": 3, "dau_mau_change": 0.02 }, "engagement_drop": { "meeting_cancellations": 0, "response_time_days": 1, "nps_change": 1 }, "support_issues": { "open_escalations": 0, "unresolved_critical": 0, "satisfaction_trend": "improving" }, "relationship_signals": { "champion_left": false, "sponsor_change": false, "competitor_mentions": 0 }, "commercial_factors": { "contract_type": "annual", "pricing_complaints": false, "budget_cuts_mentioned": false }, "contract": { "licensed_seats": 100, "active_seats": 95, "plan_tier": "professional", "available_tiers": ["professional", "enterprise", "enterprise_plus"] }, "product_usage": { "core_platform": {"adopted": true, "usage_pct": 85}, "analytics_module": {"adopted": true, "usage_pct": 60}, "integrations_module": {"adopted": false, "usage_pct": 0}, "api_access": {"adopted": true, "usage_pct": 40}, "advanced_reporting": {"adopted": false, "usage_pct": 0} }, "departments": { "current": ["engineering", "product"], "potential": ["marketing", "sales", "support"] } }, { "customer_id": "CUST-002", "name": "TechStart Inc", "segment": "smb", "arr": 18000, "contract_end_date": "2026-04-15", "usage": { "login_frequency": 40, "feature_adoption": 30, "dau_mau_ratio": 0.15 }, "engagement": { "support_ticket_volume": 8, "meeting_attendance": 50, "nps_score": 5, "csat_score": 3.0 }, "support": { "open_tickets": 6, "escalation_rate": 0.18, "avg_resolution_hours": 42 }, "relationship": { "executive_sponsor_engagement": 30, "multi_threading_depth": 1, "renewal_sentiment": "negative" }, "previous_period": { "usage_score": 55, "engagement_score": 50, "support_score": 60, "relationship_score": 45, "overall_score": 52 }, "usage_decline": { "login_trend": -25, "feature_adoption_change": -18, "dau_mau_change": -0.12 }, "engagement_drop": { "meeting_cancellations": 3, "response_time_days": 8, "nps_change": -4 }, "support_issues": { "open_escalations": 2, "unresolved_critical": 1, "satisfaction_trend": "declining" }, "relationship_signals": { "champion_left": true, "sponsor_change": false, "competitor_mentions": 3 }, "commercial_factors": { "contract_type": "month-to-month", "pricing_complaints": true, "budget_cuts_mentioned": true }, "contract": { "licensed_seats": 20, "active_seats": 8, "plan_tier": "starter", "available_tiers": ["starter", "professional", "enterprise"] }, "product_usage": { "core_platform": {"adopted": true, "usage_pct": 35}, "analytics_module": {"adopted": false, "usage_pct": 0}, "integrations_module": {"adopted": false, "usage_pct": 0}, "api_access": {"adopted": false, "usage_pct": 0}, "advanced_reporting": {"adopted": false, "usage_pct": 0} }, "departments": { "current": ["engineering"], "potential": ["product", "design"] } }, { "customer_id": "CUST-003", "name": "GlobalTrade Solutions", "segment": "mid-market", "arr": 55000, "contract_end_date": "2026-09-30", "usage": { "login_frequency": 70, "feature_adoption": 58, "dau_mau_ratio": 0.35 }, "engagement": { "support_ticket_volume": 5, "meeting_attendance": 75, "nps_score": 7, "csat_score": 3.8 }, "support": { "open_tickets": 3, "escalation_rate": 0.10, "avg_resolution_hours": 30 }, "relationship": { "executive_sponsor_engagement": 60, "multi_threading_depth": 3, "renewal_sentiment": "neutral" }, "previous_period": { "usage_score": 68, "engagement_score": 70, "support_score": 65, "relationship_score": 62, "overall_score": 66 }, "usage_decline": { "login_trend": -8, "feature_adoption_change": -5, "dau_mau_change": -0.03 }, "engagement_drop": { "meeting_cancellations": 1, "response_time_days": 3, "nps_change": -1 }, "support_issues": { "open_escalations": 1, "unresolved_critical": 0, "satisfaction_trend": "stable" }, "relationship_signals": { "champion_left": false, "sponsor_change": true, "competitor_mentions": 1 }, "commercial_factors": { "contract_type": "annual", "pricing_complaints": false, "budget_cuts_mentioned": false }, "contract": { "licensed_seats": 50, "active_seats": 48, "plan_tier": "professional", "available_tiers": ["professional", "enterprise", "enterprise_plus"] }, "product_usage": { "core_platform": {"adopted": true, "usage_pct": 78}, "analytics_module": {"adopted": true, "usage_pct": 45}, "integrations_module": {"adopted": true, "usage_pct": 55}, "api_access": {"adopted": false, "usage_pct": 0}, "advanced_reporting": {"adopted": false, "usage_pct": 0} }, "departments": { "current": ["operations", "finance"], "potential": ["logistics", "compliance"] } }, { "customer_id": "CUST-004", "name": "HealthFirst Medical", "segment": "enterprise", "arr": 200000, "contract_end_date": "2027-03-15", "usage": { "login_frequency": 92, "feature_adoption": 88, "dau_mau_ratio": 0.55 }, "engagement": { "support_ticket_volume": 2, "meeting_attendance": 95, "nps_score": 9, "csat_score": 4.6 }, "support": { "open_tickets": 1, "escalation_rate": 0.02, "avg_resolution_hours": 12 }, "relationship": { "executive_sponsor_engagement": 92, "multi_threading_depth": 6, "renewal_sentiment": "positive" }, "previous_period": { "usage_score": 85, "engagement_score": 82, "support_score": 88, "relationship_score": 80, "overall_score": 84 }, "usage_decline": { "login_trend": 3, "feature_adoption_change": 5, "dau_mau_change": 0.03 }, "engagement_drop": { "meeting_cancellations": 0, "response_time_days": 1, "nps_change": 0 }, "support_issues": { "open_escalations": 0, "unresolved_critical": 0, "satisfaction_trend": "improving" }, "relationship_signals": { "champion_left": false, "sponsor_change": false, "competitor_mentions": 0 }, "commercial_factors": { "contract_type": "multi-year", "pricing_complaints": false, "budget_cuts_mentioned": false }, "contract": { "licensed_seats": 250, "active_seats": 240, "plan_tier": "enterprise", "available_tiers": ["professional", "enterprise", "enterprise_plus"] }, "product_usage": { "core_platform": {"adopted": true, "usage_pct": 92}, "analytics_module": {"adopted": true, "usage_pct": 80}, "integrations_module": {"adopted": true, "usage_pct": 70}, "api_access": {"adopted": true, "usage_pct": 65}, "advanced_reporting": {"adopted": true, "usage_pct": 50}, "security_module": {"adopted": false, "usage_pct": 0}, "audit_module": {"adopted": false, "usage_pct": 0} }, "departments": { "current": ["clinical", "operations", "IT", "compliance"], "potential": ["research", "finance", "HR"] } } ] } FILE:customer-success-manager/assets/success_plan_template.md # Customer Success Plan **Customer:** [Customer Name] **CSM:** [CSM Name] **Account Executive:** [AE Name] **Plan Created:** [Date] **Last Updated:** [Date] **Review Cadence:** [Monthly / Quarterly] --- ## 1. Customer Overview | Field | Details | |-------|---------| | Industry | [Industry] | | Company Size | [Employees] | | Segment | [Enterprise / Mid-Market / SMB] | | ARR | $[Amount] | | Contract Start | [Date] | | Renewal Date | [Date] | | Plan Tier | [Tier name] | | Licensed Seats | [Number] | ### Key Stakeholders | Name | Title | Role | Engagement Level | |------|-------|------|-----------------| | [Name] | [Title] | Executive Sponsor | [High / Medium / Low] | | [Name] | [Title] | Day-to-Day Champion | [High / Medium / Low] | | [Name] | [Title] | Technical Lead | [High / Medium / Low] | | [Name] | [Title] | End User Lead | [High / Medium / Low] | --- ## 2. Business Objectives ### Primary Business Objectives | # | Objective | Success Metric | Target | Timeline | |---|-----------|---------------|--------|----------| | 1 | [e.g., Reduce manual reporting time] | [Hours saved per week] | [Target number] | [Date] | | 2 | [e.g., Improve team collaboration] | [Project completion rate] | [Target %] | [Date] | | 3 | [e.g., Increase revenue visibility] | [Forecast accuracy] | [Target %] | [Date] | ### Why These Objectives Matter - **Objective 1:** [Business context -- why this matters to the customer's overall strategy] - **Objective 2:** [Business context] - **Objective 3:** [Business context] --- ## 3. Success Milestones ### Phase 1: Foundation (Days 1-30) | Milestone | Target Date | Status | Owner | Notes | |-----------|------------|--------|-------|-------| | Technical setup complete | [Date] | [ ] | [Name] | | | Admin training delivered | [Date] | [ ] | CSM | | | Core team onboarded | [Date] | [ ] | CSM | | | First value milestone achieved | [Date] | [ ] | [Name] | | | Data migration validated | [Date] | [ ] | SE | | ### Phase 2: Adoption (Days 31-90) | Milestone | Target Date | Status | Owner | Notes | |-----------|------------|--------|-------|-------| | 80% user adoption | [Date] | [ ] | CSM | | | Key workflows live | [Date] | [ ] | [Name] | | | Integrations configured | [Date] | [ ] | SE | | | First ROI measurement | [Date] | [ ] | CSM | | | 30-day review complete | [Date] | [ ] | CSM | | ### Phase 3: Value Realisation (Days 91-180) | Milestone | Target Date | Status | Owner | Notes | |-----------|------------|--------|-------|-------| | Objective 1 progress measurable | [Date] | [ ] | [Name] | | | Advanced features adopted | [Date] | [ ] | CSM | | | QBR completed | [Date] | [ ] | CSM | | | Executive alignment confirmed | [Date] | [ ] | CSM | | ### Phase 4: Optimisation and Growth (Days 181-365) | Milestone | Target Date | Status | Owner | Notes | |-----------|------------|--------|-------|-------| | All objectives on track | [Date] | [ ] | CSM | | | ROI documented for renewal | [Date] | [ ] | CSM | | | Expansion opportunities identified | [Date] | [ ] | CSM + AE | | | Renewal conversation initiated | [Date] | [ ] | CSM + AE | | --- ## 4. Health Score Tracking | Date | Overall Score | Usage | Engagement | Support | Relationship | Classification | |------|--------------|-------|------------|---------|-------------|---------------| | [Date] | [Score] | [Score] | [Score] | [Score] | [Score] | [Green/Yellow/Red] | | [Date] | [Score] | [Score] | [Score] | [Score] | [Score] | [Green/Yellow/Red] | --- ## 5. Risk Register | Risk | Probability | Impact | Mitigation | Owner | Status | |------|------------|--------|-----------|-------|--------| | [e.g., Executive sponsor departure] | [High/Med/Low] | [High/Med/Low] | [Multi-thread relationships] | CSM | [Active/Resolved] | | [e.g., Low adoption in team X] | [High/Med/Low] | [High/Med/Low] | [Targeted training session] | CSM | [Active/Resolved] | | [e.g., Budget review next quarter] | [High/Med/Low] | [High/Med/Low] | [Document ROI before review] | CSM | [Active/Resolved] | --- ## 6. Communication Plan | Activity | Frequency | Participants | Purpose | |----------|-----------|-------------|---------| | Status check-in | [Weekly / Bi-weekly] | CSM + Champion | Tactical progress review | | Strategic review | [Monthly] | CSM + Stakeholders | Objective alignment | | QBR | [Quarterly] | CSM + Executive Sponsor | Executive business review | | Technical review | [As needed] | SE + Technical Lead | Architecture and integration | | Renewal planning | [90 days before] | CSM + AE + Sponsor | Contract discussion | --- ## 7. Product Adoption Plan ### Current State | Module/Feature | Status | Usage Level | Target Usage | Gap | |---------------|--------|-------------|-------------|-----| | [Module 1] | Adopted | [%] | [%] | [Actions needed] | | [Module 2] | Adopted | [%] | [%] | [Actions needed] | | [Module 3] | Not Adopted | 0% | [%] | [Enablement plan] | ### Enablement Activities | Activity | Target Date | Audience | Expected Outcome | |----------|------------|----------|-----------------| | [Training session] | [Date] | [Team/Group] | [Metric improvement] | | [Workshop] | [Date] | [Team/Group] | [New workflow adoption] | | [Office hours] | [Ongoing] | [All users] | [Question resolution] | --- ## 8. Expansion Roadmap | Opportunity | Type | Estimated Value | Timeline | Prerequisites | |------------|------|----------------|----------|--------------| | [e.g., Additional seats] | Expansion | $[Amount] | [Quarter] | [Usage > 90%] | | [e.g., Tier upgrade] | Upsell | $[Amount] | [Quarter] | [Feature requests] | | [e.g., New module] | Cross-sell | $[Amount] | [Quarter] | [Use case validated] | --- ## 9. Notes and Updates ### [Date] - [Author] [Update notes, key decisions, changes to plan] ### [Date] - [Author] [Update notes, key decisions, changes to plan] --- **Next Review Date:** [Date] **Plan Owner:** [CSM Name] FILE:customer-success-manager/references/cs-metrics-benchmarks.md # Customer Success Metrics and Benchmarks Industry benchmarks for key customer success metrics, segmented by company size, customer segment, and industry vertical. --- ## Core SaaS Metrics ### Net Revenue Retention (NRR) NRR measures revenue retained from existing customers including expansion, contraction, and churn. It is the single most important metric for SaaS customer success. **Formula:** (Starting ARR + Expansion - Contraction - Churn) / Starting ARR * 100 | Performance Level | NRR Range | Interpretation | |-------------------|-----------|----------------| | Best-in-class | > 130% | Strong expansion engine, very low churn | | Excellent | 120-130% | Healthy growth from existing customers | | Good | 110-120% | Solid retention with moderate expansion | | Target | > 110% | Minimum for sustainable growth | | Acceptable | 100-110% | Revenue stable but limited expansion | | Below target | 90-100% | Churn exceeds expansion | | Concerning | < 90% | Significant revenue erosion | **Benchmarks by Segment:** | Customer Segment | Median NRR | Top Quartile | Bottom Quartile | |-----------------|------------|--------------|-----------------| | Enterprise (>$100K ARR) | 115% | 130%+ | 105% | | Mid-Market ($25K-$100K) | 108% | 120% | 98% | | SMB (<$25K ARR) | 95% | 105% | 85% | ### Gross Revenue Retention (GRR) GRR measures revenue retained without counting expansion. It isolates the churn and contraction signal. **Formula:** (Starting ARR - Contraction - Churn) / Starting ARR * 100 | Performance Level | GRR Range | Interpretation | |-------------------|-----------|----------------| | Best-in-class | > 95% | Minimal churn, highly sticky product | | Excellent | 92-95% | Strong retention | | Good | 90-92% | Healthy with room to improve | | Target | > 90% | Industry standard target | | Acceptable | 85-90% | Moderate churn, needs focus | | Below target | 80-85% | High churn impacting growth | | Concerning | < 80% | Urgent retention problem | **Benchmarks by Segment:** | Customer Segment | Median GRR | Top Quartile | Bottom Quartile | |-----------------|------------|--------------|-----------------| | Enterprise | 95% | 98% | 90% | | Mid-Market | 90% | 95% | 85% | | SMB | 82% | 90% | 75% | --- ## Health Score Benchmarks ### Portfolio Health Distribution (Target) A healthy CS portfolio should have the following approximate distribution: | Classification | Target Distribution | Alert Threshold | |---------------|-------------------|-----------------| | Green (Healthy) | 60-70% | < 50% triggers portfolio review | | Yellow (Attention) | 20-30% | > 35% signals systemic issues | | Red (At Risk) | 5-10% | > 15% requires executive intervention | ### Average Health Score by Segment | Segment | Target Average | Industry Median | Top Quartile | |---------|---------------|-----------------|--------------| | Enterprise | > 78 | 72 | 82 | | Mid-Market | > 75 | 68 | 78 | | SMB | > 70 | 65 | 75 | ### Health Score by Dimension (Industry Medians) | Dimension | Enterprise | Mid-Market | SMB | |-----------|-----------|------------|-----| | Usage | 72 | 68 | 60 | | Engagement | 70 | 62 | 55 | | Support | 78 | 72 | 65 | | Relationship | 68 | 60 | 50 | --- ## Churn Metrics ### Logo Churn Rate (Annual) | Performance Level | Rate | Interpretation | |-------------------|------|----------------| | Best-in-class | < 5% | Exceptional retention | | Excellent | 5-8% | Very strong | | Good | 8-12% | Healthy | | Acceptable | 12-15% | Room for improvement | | Below target | 15-20% | Significant churn problem | | Concerning | > 20% | Urgent -- product-market fit issues likely | **Benchmarks by Segment:** | Segment | Median Annual Logo Churn | Top Quartile | Bottom Quartile | |---------|------------------------|--------------|-----------------| | Enterprise | 5% | 2% | 10% | | Mid-Market | 10% | 5% | 18% | | SMB | 20% | 12% | 35% | ### Churn Leading Indicators The following metrics have the highest predictive power for churn events: | Indicator | Lead Time | Correlation with Churn | |-----------|-----------|----------------------| | Login frequency decline (>30%) | 60-90 days | Very High | | NPS drop (>3 points) | 30-60 days | High | | Executive sponsor departure | 30-90 days | Very High | | Support escalation rate increase | 30-60 days | High | | Meeting cancellation increase | 30-45 days | Moderate-High | | Feature adoption decline | 60-90 days | Moderate | | Competitor mentions | 30-60 days | Moderate | --- ## Expansion Metrics ### Expansion Revenue Rate | Performance Level | Rate | Notes | |-------------------|------|-------| | Best-in-class | > 30% of total revenue | Strong land-and-expand motion | | Excellent | 25-30% | Effective expansion engine | | Good | 20-25% | Solid upsell/cross-sell | | Target | > 20% | Minimum for healthy growth | | Below target | 10-20% | Expansion motion needs development | | Concerning | < 10% | Missing significant expansion opportunity | ### Expansion by Type | Expansion Type | Typical Contribution | Average Deal Size | |---------------|---------------------|-------------------| | Seat Expansion | 40-50% of expansion | 15-25% of contract value | | Tier Upsell | 25-35% of expansion | 40-80% of contract value | | Module Cross-sell | 15-25% of expansion | 10-20% of contract value | | Department Expansion | 5-15% of expansion | 50-100% of contract value | ### Expansion Readiness Indicators | Signal | Interpretation | |--------|---------------| | Seat utilisation > 90% | Ready for seat expansion | | Feature requests for higher tier | Upsell opportunity | | Usage of 70%+ of current modules | Ready for cross-sell | | New department interest | Department expansion play | | Customer referral activity | Strong relationship, open to expansion | --- ## Engagement Metrics ### Customer Engagement Score (CES) Benchmarks | Metric | Target | Median | Warning | |--------|--------|--------|---------| | Meeting attendance rate | > 80% | 72% | < 50% | | Average NPS | > 50 | 35 | < 20 | | Average CSAT | > 4.2/5 | 3.8/5 | < 3.0/5 | | Response time (days) | < 2 | 3 | > 5 | | QBR completion rate | > 90% | 75% | < 60% | ### Time to First Value (TTFV) | Segment | Target TTFV | Median TTFV | Warning Threshold | |---------|------------|------------|-------------------| | Enterprise | < 30 days | 45 days | > 60 days | | Mid-Market | < 21 days | 30 days | > 45 days | | SMB | < 14 days | 21 days | > 30 days | --- ## CSM Operational Metrics ### Portfolio Management | Metric | Enterprise CSM | Mid-Market CSM | SMB CSM (Tech-Touch) | |--------|---------------|----------------|---------------------| | Accounts per CSM | 10-25 | 30-60 | 100-300+ | | ARR per CSM | $2M-$5M | $2M-$4M | $1M-$3M | | Touch frequency | Weekly-biweekly | Biweekly-monthly | Quarterly-automated | | QBR frequency | Quarterly | Semi-annually | Annually | | Health score reviews | Weekly | Bi-weekly | Monthly | ### CSM Activity Benchmarks | Activity | Target per Month | Purpose | |----------|-----------------|---------| | Strategic calls | 2-4 per account | Relationship building | | Health score reviews | 4 (weekly) | Portfolio monitoring | | QBR preparation | 3-5 per quarter | Executive engagement | | Escalation handling | < 2 per month | Issue resolution | | Expansion conversations | 1-2 per account | Revenue growth | --- ## Industry-Specific Benchmarks ### By Industry Vertical | Industry | Median NRR | Median GRR | Median Logo Churn | |----------|-----------|-----------|------------------| | Infrastructure/DevOps | 125% | 95% | 5% | | Cybersecurity | 120% | 93% | 7% | | HR Tech | 110% | 90% | 12% | | MarTech | 105% | 87% | 15% | | FinTech | 115% | 92% | 8% | | HealthTech | 112% | 91% | 10% | | EdTech | 100% | 85% | 18% | | eCommerce Tools | 108% | 88% | 14% | ### By Company Stage | Stage | Median NRR | Median GRR | Notes | |-------|-----------|-----------|-------| | Early Stage (<$10M ARR) | 100% | 85% | Focus on product-market fit | | Growth ($10M-$50M ARR) | 110% | 90% | Building CS function | | Scale ($50M-$200M ARR) | 118% | 93% | Mature CS operations | | Enterprise (>$200M ARR) | 115% | 95% | Optimisation phase | --- ## Metric Relationships ### Key Correlations | If This Metric Moves | This Also Tends to Move | Direction | |---------------------|------------------------|-----------| | Health score down | Churn probability up | Inverse | | NPS up | NRR up | Direct | | TTFV down | GRR up | Inverse | | Feature adoption up | Expansion rate up | Direct | | Escalation rate up | NPS down | Inverse | | Multi-threading depth up | GRR up | Direct | ### The SaaS Retention Equation **Sustainable Growth requires:** NRR > 110% AND GRR > 90% If NRR is high but GRR is low: You are churning customers and replacing with expansion from survivors. Not sustainable. If GRR is high but NRR is low: You retain well but do not expand. Leaving money on the table. Both high: Healthy, compounding growth from existing customers. --- **Last Updated:** February 2026 **Sources:** Industry surveys, SaaS benchmarking reports, customer success community data (2024-2025 data cycles). FILE:customer-success-manager/references/cs-playbooks.md # Customer Success Playbooks Comprehensive intervention, onboarding, renewal, expansion, and escalation playbooks for SaaS customer success management. --- ## Risk Tier Intervention Playbooks ### Critical Risk (Score 80-100) **Situation:** Customer is at imminent risk of churn. Multiple severe warning signals detected. Requires immediate executive-level intervention. **Timeline:** Act within 48 hours. **Steps:** 1. **Executive Escalation (Day 0)** - Alert VP of Customer Success and account executive immediately - Brief internal leadership on situation, warning signals, and ARR at risk - Identify any pending support issues and fast-track resolution 2. **Customer Contact (Day 1-2)** - Schedule executive-to-executive call (VP CS to customer VP/C-level) - Frame the conversation around understanding their challenges, not defending your product - Listen more than talk -- capture the real objections 3. **Save Plan Creation (Day 2-3)** - Create a detailed save plan with specific value milestones tied to their business outcomes - Include timeline, owners, and measurable success criteria - Get internal alignment on any concessions (pricing, features, roadmap commitments) 4. **Rescue Team Assignment (Day 3-5)** - Assign a dedicated rescue team: CSM + Solutions Engineer + Support Lead - Daily internal stand-up (15 min max) on account status - Solutions Engineer to conduct technical health check 5. **Execution and Monitoring (Week 2-4)** - Execute save plan with weekly customer check-ins - Track progress against milestones - Prepare competitive displacement defence if competitor involvement detected 6. **Resolution Assessment (Week 4)** - Evaluate whether the situation is stabilising - If improving: transition to High-risk monitoring cadence - If not improving: escalate to CEO/GM for final intervention **Success Criteria:** Risk score drops below 60 within 30 days. Customer confirms continued partnership intent. --- ### High Risk (Score 60-79) **Situation:** Customer showing clear signs of dissatisfaction or disengagement. Still salvageable with focused CSM intervention. **Timeline:** Act within 1 week. **Steps:** 1. **Root Cause Analysis (Day 1-3)** - Review all health score dimensions to identify the primary drivers - Pull support ticket history for patterns - Check product usage trends for the past 90 days 2. **CSM Outreach (Day 3-5)** - Schedule a dedicated call with the customer (not a routine check-in) - Open with empathy: "I've noticed some changes and want to make sure we're supporting you properly" - Identify the top 3 customer concerns 3. **30-Day Recovery Plan (Day 5-7)** - Build a 30-day recovery plan with measurable checkpoints every week - Include specific actions for each concern identified - Share the plan with the customer for mutual commitment 4. **Re-Engage Executive Sponsor (Week 2)** - Request a meeting with the executive sponsor - Align on business outcomes and how your product supports them - Confirm continued sponsorship and address any political changes 5. **Support Fast-Track (Ongoing)** - Escalate any pending support tickets internally - Assign a support point of contact for this account - Provide weekly status updates on open issues 6. **Progress Review (Week 3-4)** - Review all metrics for improvement - Adjust plan if specific interventions are not working - If score drops to Critical: escalate to executive playbook **Success Criteria:** Risk score drops below 40 within 30 days. No new warning signals emerge. --- ### Medium Risk (Score 40-59) **Situation:** Early warning signs detected. Customer may not be aware of emerging issues. Proactive outreach prevents escalation. **Timeline:** Act within 2 weeks. **Steps:** 1. **Data Review (Day 1-5)** - Analyse which dimension(s) are pulling the score down - Review recent support interactions for sentiment clues - Check for any known product issues affecting this customer 2. **Proactive Check-In (Week 1-2)** - Schedule a "value check-in" call (position it as routine, not reactive) - Share relevant success stories from similar customers - Propose a training session or product walkthrough for underutilised features 3. **Value Reinforcement (Week 2-3)** - Send a customised ROI summary showing value delivered - Highlight feature releases relevant to their use case - Connect them with your customer community or user group 4. **Monitoring (Week 3-4)** - Increase monitoring frequency to bi-weekly - Watch for improvement or continued decline - If declining: move to High-risk playbook **Success Criteria:** Score stabilises above 50 or improves. No escalation to High risk. --- ### Low Risk (Score 0-39) **Situation:** Customer is healthy. Standard success cadence applies. Focus on value reinforcement and expansion readiness. **Timeline:** Standard touch cadence. **Steps:** 1. **Maintain Cadence** - Enterprise: Monthly strategic reviews, quarterly QBRs - Mid-Market: Bi-monthly check-ins, semi-annual reviews - SMB: Quarterly automated health updates, annual review 2. **Proactive Communication** - Share product updates and release notes - Invite to webinars, conferences, and community events - Share relevant industry insights and benchmarks 3. **Expansion Readiness** - Monitor for expansion signals (usage approaching limits, new use cases) - Prepare expansion proposals when timing is right - Position premium features and modules relevant to their needs 4. **Renewal Preparation** - Begin renewal preparation 90 days before contract end - Build renewal proposal with value delivered summary - Identify any terms or pricing adjustments needed **Success Criteria:** Customer remains in Green classification. Expansion conversations initiated when appropriate. --- ## Onboarding Playbook ### Phase 1: Welcome and Setup (Day 1-14) | Day | Activity | Owner | Deliverable | |-----|----------|-------|-------------| | 1 | Welcome email and introduction | CSM | Welcome package sent | | 1-2 | Kickoff call | CSM + SE | Success plan drafted | | 3-5 | Technical setup and configuration | SE | Environment configured | | 5-7 | Admin training session | CSM | Admins trained | | 7-10 | Data migration (if applicable) | SE | Data validated | | 10-14 | Initial user training | CSM | Core team trained | ### Phase 2: Activation (Day 15-30) | Day | Activity | Owner | Deliverable | |-----|----------|-------|-------------| | 15 | Activation check -- are users logging in? | CSM | Usage report | | 15-20 | Follow-up training for laggards | CSM | All users active | | 20-25 | First business outcome milestone | CSM | Milestone achieved | | 25-30 | 30-day review call | CSM | Review documented | **Critical Milestone:** Time to First Value must be under 30 days. ### Phase 3: Adoption (Day 31-60) | Day | Activity | Owner | Deliverable | |-----|----------|-------|-------------| | 30-40 | Feature adoption expansion | CSM | New features in use | | 40-50 | Integration setup (if applicable) | SE | Integrations live | | 50-60 | Usage benchmarking vs. peers | CSM | Benchmark report | ### Phase 4: Optimisation (Day 61-90) | Day | Activity | Owner | Deliverable | |-----|----------|-------|-------------| | 60-70 | Advanced use case workshop | CSM + SE | New use cases identified | | 70-80 | ROI measurement | CSM | ROI documented | | 80-90 | 90-day executive review | CSM | Transition to steady-state | **Gate:** Handoff from onboarding to ongoing CSM management. Health score must be Yellow or better. --- ## Renewal Playbook ### 120 Days Before Renewal - Review contract terms and pricing - Assess current health score and trajectory - Identify any outstanding issues or concerns - Begin internal alignment on renewal strategy ### 90 Days Before Renewal - Schedule renewal conversation with customer - Prepare value delivered summary (ROI, usage stats, milestones achieved) - Draft renewal proposal with recommended terms - If at-risk: escalate and begin risk mitigation ### 60 Days Before Renewal - Present renewal proposal to customer - Negotiate terms if needed - Address any concerns raised during the process - Escalate blockers to leadership ### 30 Days Before Renewal - Finalise contract terms - Obtain signatures - Plan for any post-renewal actions (expansion, migration) - Update CRM with renewal details ### Post-Renewal - Confirm renewed contract in systems - Send thank-you and updated success plan - Schedule next QBR - Identify expansion opportunities --- ## Expansion Playbook ### Identifying Expansion Signals | Signal | Expansion Type | Priority | |--------|---------------|----------| | Seat utilisation > 90% | Seat expansion | High | | Requests for features in higher tier | Tier upsell | High | | New department inquiries | Department expansion | Medium | | High adoption of existing modules | Module cross-sell | Medium | | Customer referencing competitors for missing features | Cross-sell | High | ### Expansion Conversation Framework 1. **Discovery:** "I noticed your team has been getting great value from [feature]. Have you considered how [new module] could help with [related business outcome]?" 2. **Value Framing:** "Companies similar to yours who adopted [module] saw [specific metric improvement]." 3. **Proposal:** "Based on your current usage, here's what the expansion would look like..." 4. **Stakeholder Alignment:** Involve the economic buyer early. The champion can advocate, but the budget holder decides. 5. **Close:** Coordinate with sales/account executive for commercial negotiation. --- ## Escalation Procedures ### Internal Escalation Matrix | Trigger | Escalation Level | Response Time | |---------|-----------------|---------------| | Health score drops to Red | VP Customer Success | 24 hours | | Executive sponsor leaves | Director CS + AE | 48 hours | | Critical bug affecting customer | VP Engineering + VP CS | 4 hours | | Customer mentions competitor evaluation | VP CS + VP Sales | 24 hours | | Renewal at risk (60 days or less) | CRO/VP Sales | 24 hours | | Customer threatens legal action | Legal + VP CS | Immediate | ### Escalation Communication Template **Subject:** [ESCALATION] {Customer Name} -- {Brief Description} **Body:** - Customer: {name}, {segment}, ${ARR} - Health Score: {score} ({classification}) - Renewal Date: {date} - Issue Summary: {2-3 sentences} - Warning Signals: {list} - Recommended Action: {specific next step} - Urgency: {critical/high/medium} --- **Last Updated:** February 2026 FILE:customer-success-manager/references/health-scoring-framework.md # Health Scoring Framework Complete methodology for multi-dimensional customer health scoring in SaaS customer success. --- ## Overview Customer health scoring is the foundation of proactive customer success management. A well-calibrated health score enables CSMs to prioritise their portfolio, identify emerging risks before they become churn events, and allocate resources where they will have the greatest impact. This framework uses a weighted, multi-dimensional approach that scores customers across four key areas: usage, engagement, support, and relationship. Each dimension contributes to an overall health score (0-100) that classifies accounts as Green (healthy), Yellow (needs attention), or Red (at risk). --- ## Scoring Dimensions ### 1. Usage (Weight: 30%) Usage metrics are the strongest leading indicator of customer health. Customers who are not using the product are not deriving value and are at elevated churn risk. | Metric | Definition | Scoring Method | |--------|-----------|----------------| | Login Frequency | Percentage of expected login days with actual logins | (actual / target) * 100, capped at 100 | | Feature Adoption | Percentage of available features actively used | (adopted / available) * 100, capped at 100 | | DAU/MAU Ratio | Daily active users divided by monthly active users | (actual / target) * 100, capped at 100 | **Sub-weights within Usage:** - Login Frequency: 35% - Feature Adoption: 40% - DAU/MAU Ratio: 25% **Why 30% weight:** Usage is the most objective, data-driven signal. Declining usage almost always precedes churn. However, some customers may have seasonal usage patterns, which is why it is not weighted even higher. ### 2. Engagement (Weight: 25%) Engagement measures how actively the customer participates in the relationship beyond just product usage. | Metric | Definition | Scoring Method | |--------|-----------|----------------| | Support Ticket Volume | Number of support tickets in the period | Inverse score: (1 - actual/max) * 100 | | Meeting Attendance | Percentage of scheduled meetings attended | (actual / target) * 100, capped at 100 | | NPS Score | Net Promoter Score response (0-10) | (actual / target) * 100, capped at 100 | | CSAT Score | Customer Satisfaction score (1-5) | (actual / target) * 100, capped at 100 | **Sub-weights within Engagement:** - Support Ticket Volume: 20% (inverse -- fewer tickets is better) - Meeting Attendance: 30% - NPS Score: 25% - CSAT Score: 25% **Why 25% weight:** Engagement signals complement usage data. A customer who attends meetings but does not use the product may be in an evaluation phase. A customer who uses the product but skips meetings may be becoming self-sufficient -- or disengaging. ### 3. Support (Weight: 20%) Support health measures the quality of the customer's support experience, which directly impacts satisfaction and renewal likelihood. | Metric | Definition | Scoring Method | |--------|-----------|----------------| | Open Tickets | Number of currently unresolved tickets | Inverse score: (1 - actual/max) * 100 | | Escalation Rate | Percentage of tickets escalated | Inverse score: (1 - actual/max) * 100 | | Avg Resolution Time | Average hours to resolve tickets | Inverse score: (1 - actual/max) * 100 | **Sub-weights within Support:** - Open Tickets: 35% - Escalation Rate: 35% - Resolution Time: 30% **Why 20% weight:** Support issues are lagging indicators -- they tell you there is already a problem. However, unresolved support issues are a strong predictor of churn, especially when combined with declining engagement. ### 4. Relationship (Weight: 25%) Relationship health measures the strength and depth of the human connection between the customer and your organisation. | Metric | Definition | Scoring Method | |--------|-----------|----------------| | Executive Sponsor Engagement | Engagement level of exec sponsor (0-100) | (actual / target) * 100, capped at 100 | | Multi-Threading Depth | Number of stakeholder contacts | (actual / target) * 100, capped at 100 | | Renewal Sentiment | Qualitative sentiment assessment | Mapped to score: positive=100, neutral=60, negative=20, unknown=50 | **Sub-weights within Relationship:** - Executive Sponsor Engagement: 35% - Multi-Threading Depth: 30% - Renewal Sentiment: 35% **Why 25% weight:** Relationship strength is the most important defence against competitive displacement. A customer with strong relationships will give you more chances to fix problems. A customer with weak relationships may leave without warning. --- ## Classification Thresholds ### Standard Thresholds | Classification | Score Range | Meaning | Action | |---------------|-------------|---------|--------| | Green | 75-100 | Customer is healthy and achieving value | Standard cadence, focus on expansion | | Yellow | 50-74 | Customer needs attention | Increase touch frequency, investigate root causes | | Red | 0-49 | Customer is at risk | Immediate intervention, create save plan | ### Segment-Adjusted Thresholds Enterprise customers typically have higher expectations and more complex deployments, which means a higher bar for "healthy." SMB customers may have simpler use cases and lower engagement expectations. | Segment | Green Threshold | Yellow Threshold | Red Threshold | |---------|----------------|------------------|---------------| | Enterprise | 75-100 | 50-74 | 0-49 | | Mid-Market | 70-100 | 45-69 | 0-44 | | SMB | 65-100 | 40-64 | 0-39 | ### Segment-Specific Benchmarks Each metric target is calibrated per segment. Enterprise customers are expected to have higher login frequency, attendance, and sponsor engagement. SMB customers have lower targets but still meaningful thresholds. **Example Calibration:** - Enterprise login frequency target: 90% (high-touch, deeply embedded) - Mid-Market login frequency target: 80% (balanced engagement) - SMB login frequency target: 70% (self-serve oriented) --- ## Trend Analysis A single health score snapshot is useful. A health score trend is actionable. ### Trend Classification | Trend | Criteria | Implication | |-------|----------|-------------| | Improving | Current > Previous by 5+ points | Positive trajectory, reinforce what is working | | Stable | Within +/- 5 points | Maintain current approach | | Declining | Current < Previous by 5+ points | Investigate and intervene | | No Data | No previous period available | Establish baseline | ### Trend Priority Matrix | Current Score | Trend | Priority | |--------------|-------|----------| | Green | Declining | HIGH -- intervene before it drops further | | Yellow | Declining | CRITICAL -- trajectory leads to Red | | Yellow | Improving | MEDIUM -- reinforce positive momentum | | Red | Improving | HIGH -- support the recovery | | Red | Stable | CRITICAL -- needs new intervention approach | --- ## Calibration Guidelines ### When to Recalibrate 1. **After major product changes**: New features may change what "good usage" looks like 2. **Seasonal patterns**: Some industries have cyclical usage (retail holiday season, fiscal year end) 3. **Portfolio composition changes**: If you add many SMB customers, the overall averages shift 4. **After churn events**: Review whether the health score predicted the churn ### Calibration Process 1. Export health scores for all customers over the past 12 months 2. Identify all churn events in the same period 3. Calculate the average health score of churned customers 90, 60, and 30 days before churn 4. Adjust thresholds so that churned customers would have been classified as Yellow or Red at least 60 days before churn 5. Validate with a holdout set of recent data ### Common Calibration Pitfalls - **Threshold creep**: Gradually lowering Green thresholds to make the portfolio look healthier - **Over-weighting lagging indicators**: Support metrics react after the damage is done - **Ignoring segment differences**: Using one threshold for all segments - **Sentiment bias**: Over-relying on subjective renewal sentiment --- ## Implementation Checklist 1. Define data sources for each metric (CRM, product analytics, support system) 2. Establish data refresh frequency (daily for usage, weekly for engagement) 3. Configure segment benchmarks for your customer base 4. Set initial thresholds using industry defaults (provided above) 5. Run a 30-day pilot with manual review of edge cases 6. Calibrate thresholds based on pilot results 7. Automate scoring and alerting 8. Review and recalibrate quarterly --- **Last Updated:** February 2026 FILE:customer-success-manager/scripts/churn_risk_analyzer.py #!/usr/bin/env python3 """ Churn Risk Analyzer Identifies at-risk customer accounts by scoring behavioral signals across usage decline, engagement drop, support issues, relationship signals, and commercial factors. Produces risk tiers with intervention playbooks and time-to-renewal urgency multipliers. Usage: python churn_risk_analyzer.py customer_data.json python churn_risk_analyzer.py customer_data.json --format json """ import argparse import json import sys from datetime import datetime from typing import Any, Dict, List, Optional, Tuple # --------------------------------------------------------------------------- # Constants # --------------------------------------------------------------------------- RISK_SIGNAL_WEIGHTS: Dict[str, float] = { "usage_decline": 0.30, "engagement_drop": 0.25, "support_issues": 0.20, "relationship_signals": 0.15, "commercial_factors": 0.10, } RISK_TIERS: List[Dict[str, Any]] = [ {"name": "critical", "min": 80, "max": 100, "label": "CRITICAL", "action": "Immediate executive escalation"}, {"name": "high", "min": 60, "max": 79, "label": "HIGH", "action": "Urgent CSM intervention"}, {"name": "medium", "min": 40, "max": 59, "label": "MEDIUM", "action": "Proactive outreach"}, {"name": "low", "min": 0, "max": 39, "label": "LOW", "action": "Standard monitoring"}, ] WARNING_SEVERITY: Dict[str, int] = { "critical": 4, "high": 3, "medium": 2, "low": 1, } # Intervention playbooks per tier INTERVENTION_PLAYBOOKS: Dict[str, List[str]] = { "critical": [ "Schedule executive-to-executive call within 48 hours", "Create detailed save plan with specific value milestones", "Offer concessions or contract restructuring if needed", "Assign dedicated rescue team (CSM + Solutions Engineer)", "Daily internal stand-up on account status until stabilised", "Prepare competitive displacement defence strategy", ], "high": [ "Schedule urgent CSM call within 1 week", "Conduct root cause analysis on declining metrics", "Build 30-day recovery plan with measurable checkpoints", "Re-engage executive sponsor for alignment meeting", "Accelerate any pending feature requests or bug fixes", "Increase touch frequency to weekly until improvement", ], "medium": [ "Schedule proactive check-in within 2 weeks", "Share relevant success stories and best practices", "Propose training session or product walkthrough", "Review current usage against success plan goals", "Identify and address any unvoiced concerns", "Bi-weekly monitoring until score improves to Low", ], "low": [ "Maintain standard touch cadence", "Share product updates and new feature announcements", "Monitor health score trends monthly", "Proactively share relevant industry insights", "Prepare for upcoming renewal conversations (if within 90 days)", ], } SATISFACTION_TREND_SCORES: Dict[str, float] = { "improving": 10.0, "stable": 30.0, "declining": 70.0, "critical": 95.0, } # --------------------------------------------------------------------------- # Helpers # --------------------------------------------------------------------------- def safe_divide(numerator: float, denominator: float, default: float = 0.0) -> float: """Return numerator / denominator, or *default* when denominator is zero.""" if denominator == 0: return default return numerator / denominator def clamp(value: float, lo: float = 0.0, hi: float = 100.0) -> float: """Clamp *value* between *lo* and *hi*.""" return max(lo, min(hi, value)) def days_until(date_str: Optional[str]) -> Optional[int]: """Return days from today until *date_str* (ISO format), or None.""" if not date_str: return None try: target = datetime.strptime(date_str[:10], "%Y-%m-%d") delta = (target - datetime.now()).days return max(delta, 0) except (ValueError, TypeError): return None def renewal_urgency_multiplier(days_remaining: Optional[int]) -> float: """Return a multiplier (1.0 - 1.5) based on proximity to renewal. Closer renewals amplify the risk score. """ if days_remaining is None: return 1.0 if days_remaining <= 30: return 1.5 elif days_remaining <= 60: return 1.35 elif days_remaining <= 90: return 1.2 elif days_remaining <= 180: return 1.1 return 1.0 def get_risk_tier(score: float) -> Dict[str, Any]: """Return the risk tier dict matching the score.""" for tier in RISK_TIERS: if tier["min"] <= score <= tier["max"]: return tier return RISK_TIERS[-1] # default to low # --------------------------------------------------------------------------- # Signal Scoring # --------------------------------------------------------------------------- def score_usage_decline(data: Dict[str, Any]) -> Tuple[float, List[Dict[str, str]]]: """Score usage decline signals (0-100, higher = more risk).""" warnings: List[Dict[str, str]] = [] login_trend = data.get("login_trend", 0) # negative = decline feature_change = data.get("feature_adoption_change", 0) dau_mau_change = data.get("dau_mau_change", 0) # Convert declines to risk scores (0-100) login_risk = clamp(abs(min(login_trend, 0)) * 3.0) # -33% => 100 feature_risk = clamp(abs(min(feature_change, 0)) * 4.0) # -25% => 100 dau_mau_risk = clamp(abs(min(dau_mau_change, 0)) * 500) # -0.20 => 100 score = round(login_risk * 0.40 + feature_risk * 0.35 + dau_mau_risk * 0.25, 1) if login_trend <= -20: warnings.append({"severity": "critical", "signal": f"Login frequency dropped {abs(login_trend)}%"}) elif login_trend <= -10: warnings.append({"severity": "high", "signal": f"Login frequency declined {abs(login_trend)}%"}) elif login_trend < -5: warnings.append({"severity": "medium", "signal": f"Login frequency dipping {abs(login_trend)}%"}) if feature_change <= -15: warnings.append({"severity": "high", "signal": f"Feature adoption dropped {abs(feature_change)}%"}) elif feature_change < -5: warnings.append({"severity": "medium", "signal": f"Feature adoption declining {abs(feature_change)}%"}) if dau_mau_change <= -0.10: warnings.append({"severity": "high", "signal": f"DAU/MAU ratio fell by {abs(dau_mau_change):.2f}"}) return score, warnings def score_engagement_drop(data: Dict[str, Any]) -> Tuple[float, List[Dict[str, str]]]: """Score engagement drop signals (0-100, higher = more risk).""" warnings: List[Dict[str, str]] = [] cancellations = data.get("meeting_cancellations", 0) response_days = data.get("response_time_days", 1) nps_change = data.get("nps_change", 0) cancel_risk = clamp(cancellations * 25.0) # 4 cancellations => 100 response_risk = clamp((response_days - 1) * 15.0) # 1 day baseline; 7+ days => 90+ nps_risk = clamp(abs(min(nps_change, 0)) * 20.0) # -5 => 100 score = round(cancel_risk * 0.30 + response_risk * 0.35 + nps_risk * 0.35, 1) if cancellations >= 3: warnings.append({"severity": "critical", "signal": f"{cancellations} meeting cancellations -- customer disengaging"}) elif cancellations >= 2: warnings.append({"severity": "high", "signal": f"{cancellations} meeting cancellations recently"}) if response_days >= 7: warnings.append({"severity": "critical", "signal": f"Customer response time: {response_days} days -- going dark"}) elif response_days >= 4: warnings.append({"severity": "high", "signal": f"Customer response time increasing: {response_days} days"}) if nps_change <= -4: warnings.append({"severity": "critical", "signal": f"NPS dropped by {abs(nps_change)} points"}) elif nps_change <= -2: warnings.append({"severity": "high", "signal": f"NPS declined by {abs(nps_change)} points"}) return score, warnings def score_support_issues(data: Dict[str, Any]) -> Tuple[float, List[Dict[str, str]]]: """Score support-related risk signals (0-100, higher = more risk).""" warnings: List[Dict[str, str]] = [] escalations = data.get("open_escalations", 0) critical_unresolved = data.get("unresolved_critical", 0) sat_trend = data.get("satisfaction_trend", "stable").lower() esc_risk = clamp(escalations * 35.0) # 3 escalations => 100 critical_risk = clamp(critical_unresolved * 50.0) # 2 unresolved critical => 100 sat_risk = SATISFACTION_TREND_SCORES.get(sat_trend, 30.0) score = round(esc_risk * 0.35 + critical_risk * 0.35 + sat_risk * 0.30, 1) if critical_unresolved >= 2: warnings.append({"severity": "critical", "signal": f"{critical_unresolved} unresolved critical support tickets"}) elif critical_unresolved >= 1: warnings.append({"severity": "high", "signal": "Unresolved critical support ticket"}) if escalations >= 2: warnings.append({"severity": "high", "signal": f"{escalations} open escalations"}) elif escalations >= 1: warnings.append({"severity": "medium", "signal": "Open support escalation"}) if sat_trend == "critical": warnings.append({"severity": "critical", "signal": "Support satisfaction at critical levels"}) elif sat_trend == "declining": warnings.append({"severity": "high", "signal": "Support satisfaction trending down"}) return score, warnings def score_relationship_signals(data: Dict[str, Any]) -> Tuple[float, List[Dict[str, str]]]: """Score relationship risk signals (0-100, higher = more risk).""" warnings: List[Dict[str, str]] = [] risk_points = 0.0 champion_left = data.get("champion_left", False) sponsor_change = data.get("sponsor_change", False) competitor_mentions = data.get("competitor_mentions", 0) if champion_left: risk_points += 45.0 warnings.append({"severity": "critical", "signal": "Internal champion has left the organisation"}) if sponsor_change: risk_points += 30.0 warnings.append({"severity": "high", "signal": "Executive sponsor change detected"}) if competitor_mentions >= 3: risk_points += 35.0 warnings.append({"severity": "critical", "signal": f"Customer mentioned competitors {competitor_mentions} times"}) elif competitor_mentions >= 1: risk_points += competitor_mentions * 12.0 warnings.append({"severity": "medium", "signal": f"Customer mentioned competitor {competitor_mentions} time(s)"}) score = clamp(risk_points) return round(score, 1), warnings def score_commercial_factors(data: Dict[str, Any]) -> Tuple[float, List[Dict[str, str]]]: """Score commercial risk factors (0-100, higher = more risk).""" warnings: List[Dict[str, str]] = [] risk_points = 0.0 contract_type = data.get("contract_type", "annual").lower() pricing_complaints = data.get("pricing_complaints", False) budget_cuts = data.get("budget_cuts_mentioned", False) if contract_type == "month-to-month": risk_points += 30.0 warnings.append({"severity": "medium", "signal": "Month-to-month contract -- low switching cost"}) elif contract_type == "quarterly": risk_points += 15.0 if pricing_complaints: risk_points += 35.0 warnings.append({"severity": "high", "signal": "Customer has raised pricing complaints"}) if budget_cuts: risk_points += 40.0 warnings.append({"severity": "high", "signal": "Customer mentioned budget cuts or cost reduction"}) score = clamp(risk_points) return round(score, 1), warnings # --------------------------------------------------------------------------- # Main Analysis # --------------------------------------------------------------------------- def analyse_churn_risk(customer: Dict[str, Any]) -> Dict[str, Any]: """Analyse churn risk for a single customer.""" usage_score, usage_warnings = score_usage_decline(customer.get("usage_decline", {})) engagement_score, engagement_warnings = score_engagement_drop(customer.get("engagement_drop", {})) support_score, support_warnings = score_support_issues(customer.get("support_issues", {})) relationship_score, relationship_warnings = score_relationship_signals(customer.get("relationship_signals", {})) commercial_score, commercial_warnings = score_commercial_factors(customer.get("commercial_factors", {})) # Weighted raw score raw_score = ( usage_score * RISK_SIGNAL_WEIGHTS["usage_decline"] + engagement_score * RISK_SIGNAL_WEIGHTS["engagement_drop"] + support_score * RISK_SIGNAL_WEIGHTS["support_issues"] + relationship_score * RISK_SIGNAL_WEIGHTS["relationship_signals"] + commercial_score * RISK_SIGNAL_WEIGHTS["commercial_factors"] ) # Apply renewal urgency multiplier remaining = days_until(customer.get("contract_end_date")) multiplier = renewal_urgency_multiplier(remaining) adjusted_score = clamp(round(raw_score * multiplier, 1)) tier = get_risk_tier(adjusted_score) # Collect and sort warnings by severity all_warnings = usage_warnings + engagement_warnings + support_warnings + relationship_warnings + commercial_warnings all_warnings.sort(key=lambda w: WARNING_SEVERITY.get(w["severity"], 0), reverse=True) playbook = INTERVENTION_PLAYBOOKS.get(tier["name"], []) return { "customer_id": customer.get("customer_id", "unknown"), "name": customer.get("name", "Unknown"), "segment": customer.get("segment", "unknown"), "arr": customer.get("arr", 0), "risk_score": adjusted_score, "raw_score": round(raw_score, 1), "risk_tier": tier["name"], "risk_label": tier["label"], "urgency_multiplier": multiplier, "days_to_renewal": remaining, "signal_scores": { "usage_decline": {"score": usage_score, "weight": "30%"}, "engagement_drop": {"score": engagement_score, "weight": "25%"}, "support_issues": {"score": support_score, "weight": "20%"}, "relationship_signals": {"score": relationship_score, "weight": "15%"}, "commercial_factors": {"score": commercial_score, "weight": "10%"}, }, "warning_signals": all_warnings, "recommended_actions": playbook, } # --------------------------------------------------------------------------- # Output Formatting # --------------------------------------------------------------------------- def format_text(results: List[Dict[str, Any]]) -> str: """Format results as human-readable text.""" lines: List[str] = [] lines.append("=" * 72) lines.append("CHURN RISK ANALYSIS REPORT") lines.append("=" * 72) lines.append("") total = len(results) critical_count = sum(1 for r in results if r["risk_tier"] == "critical") high_count = sum(1 for r in results if r["risk_tier"] == "high") medium_count = sum(1 for r in results if r["risk_tier"] == "medium") low_count = sum(1 for r in results if r["risk_tier"] == "low") total_arr_at_risk = sum(r["arr"] for r in results if r["risk_tier"] in ("critical", "high")) lines.append(f"Portfolio Summary: {total} customers analysed") lines.append(f" Critical Risk: {critical_count}") lines.append(f" High Risk: {high_count}") lines.append(f" Medium Risk: {medium_count}") lines.append(f" Low Risk: {low_count}") lines.append(f" ARR at Risk (Critical + High): ${total_arr_at_risk:,.0f}") lines.append("") # Sort by risk score descending sorted_results = sorted(results, key=lambda r: r["risk_score"], reverse=True) for r in sorted_results: lines.append("-" * 72) lines.append(f"Customer: {r['name']} ({r['customer_id']})") lines.append(f"Segment: {r['segment'].title()} | ARR: ${r['arr']:,.0f}") renewal_str = f"{r['days_to_renewal']} days" if r["days_to_renewal"] is not None else "N/A" lines.append(f"Risk Score: {r['risk_score']}/100 [{r['risk_label']}] | Renewal: {renewal_str}") if r["urgency_multiplier"] > 1.0: lines.append(f" ** Urgency multiplier applied: {r['urgency_multiplier']}x (renewal approaching)") lines.append("") lines.append(" Signal Scores:") for signal_name, signal_data in r["signal_scores"].items(): display_name = signal_name.replace("_", " ").title() lines.append(f" {display_name:25s} {signal_data['score']:6.1f}/100 ({signal_data['weight']})") if r["warning_signals"]: lines.append("") lines.append(" Warning Signals:") for w in r["warning_signals"]: severity_tag = w["severity"].upper() lines.append(f" [{severity_tag}] {w['signal']}") if r["recommended_actions"]: lines.append("") lines.append(" Recommended Actions:") for i, action in enumerate(r["recommended_actions"], 1): lines.append(f" {i}. {action}") lines.append("") lines.append("=" * 72) return "\n".join(lines) def format_json(results: List[Dict[str, Any]]) -> str: """Format results as JSON.""" total = len(results) output = { "report": "churn_risk_analysis", "summary": { "total_customers": total, "critical_count": sum(1 for r in results if r["risk_tier"] == "critical"), "high_count": sum(1 for r in results if r["risk_tier"] == "high"), "medium_count": sum(1 for r in results if r["risk_tier"] == "medium"), "low_count": sum(1 for r in results if r["risk_tier"] == "low"), "total_arr_at_risk": sum(r["arr"] for r in results if r["risk_tier"] in ("critical", "high")), }, "customers": sorted(results, key=lambda r: r["risk_score"], reverse=True), } return json.dumps(output, indent=2) # --------------------------------------------------------------------------- # CLI # --------------------------------------------------------------------------- def main() -> None: parser = argparse.ArgumentParser( description="Analyse churn risk with behavioral signal detection and intervention recommendations." ) parser.add_argument("input_file", help="Path to JSON file containing customer data") parser.add_argument( "--format", choices=["text", "json"], default="text", dest="output_format", help="Output format (default: text)", ) args = parser.parse_args() try: with open(args.input_file, "r") as f: data = json.load(f) except FileNotFoundError: print(f"Error: File not found: {args.input_file}", file=sys.stderr) sys.exit(1) except json.JSONDecodeError as e: print(f"Error: Invalid JSON in {args.input_file}: {e}", file=sys.stderr) sys.exit(1) customers = data.get("customers", []) if not customers: print("Error: No customer records found in input file.", file=sys.stderr) sys.exit(1) results = [analyse_churn_risk(c) for c in customers] if args.output_format == "json": print(format_json(results)) else: print(format_text(results)) if __name__ == "__main__": main() FILE:customer-success-manager/scripts/expansion_opportunity_scorer.py #!/usr/bin/env python3 """ Expansion Opportunity Scorer Analyses customer product adoption depth, maps whitespace for unused features/products, estimates revenue opportunities, and prioritises expansion plays by effort vs impact. Usage: python expansion_opportunity_scorer.py customer_data.json python expansion_opportunity_scorer.py customer_data.json --format json """ import argparse import json import sys from typing import Any, Dict, List, Optional, Tuple # --------------------------------------------------------------------------- # Constants # --------------------------------------------------------------------------- # Tier pricing multipliers (relative to current plan price) TIER_UPLIFT: Dict[str, float] = { "starter": 1.0, "professional": 1.8, "enterprise": 3.0, "enterprise_plus": 4.5, } # Module revenue estimates as a fraction of base ARR MODULE_REVENUE_FRACTION: Dict[str, float] = { "core_platform": 0.00, # Already included in base "analytics_module": 0.15, "integrations_module": 0.12, "api_access": 0.10, "advanced_reporting": 0.18, "security_module": 0.20, "automation_module": 0.15, "collaboration_module": 0.10, "data_export": 0.08, "custom_workflows": 0.22, "sso_module": 0.08, "audit_module": 0.10, } # Effort classification for different expansion types EFFORT_MAP: Dict[str, str] = { "upsell_tier": "medium", "cross_sell_module": "low", "seat_expansion": "low", "department_expansion": "high", } # Usage thresholds for recommendations HIGH_USAGE_THRESHOLD = 75 # % usage indicates readiness for more LOW_ADOPTION_THRESHOLD = 30 # % usage is too low to push expansion there # --------------------------------------------------------------------------- # Helpers # --------------------------------------------------------------------------- def safe_divide(numerator: float, denominator: float, default: float = 0.0) -> float: """Return numerator / denominator, or *default* when denominator is zero.""" if denominator == 0: return default return numerator / denominator def clamp(value: float, lo: float = 0.0, hi: float = 100.0) -> float: """Clamp *value* between *lo* and *hi*.""" return max(lo, min(hi, value)) def estimate_seat_expansion_revenue( arr: float, licensed: int, active: int, segment: str ) -> Tuple[float, str]: """Estimate revenue from seat expansion. Returns (estimated_revenue, rationale). """ utilisation = safe_divide(active, licensed) if utilisation >= 0.90: # Near capacity -- likely needs more seats growth_factor = {"enterprise": 0.25, "mid-market": 0.20, "smb": 0.15} factor = growth_factor.get(segment.lower(), 0.15) revenue = round(arr * factor, 0) return revenue, f"Seat utilisation at {utilisation:.0%} -- likely needs {int(licensed * factor)} additional seats" return 0.0, f"Seat utilisation at {utilisation:.0%} -- not yet at expansion threshold" def estimate_tier_upgrade_revenue( arr: float, current_tier: str, available_tiers: List[str] ) -> Tuple[float, Optional[str], str]: """Estimate revenue from tier upgrade. Returns (estimated_revenue, target_tier, rationale). """ current_mult = TIER_UPLIFT.get(current_tier.lower(), 1.0) best_revenue = 0.0 best_tier = None rationale = "Already on highest tier" for tier in available_tiers: tier_mult = TIER_UPLIFT.get(tier.lower(), 1.0) if tier_mult > current_mult: # Calculate revenue as the incremental ARR from upgrading base_arr = safe_divide(arr, current_mult) upgrade_arr = base_arr * tier_mult incremental = upgrade_arr - arr if incremental > best_revenue: # Pick the next tier up (not skip tiers) if best_tier is None or tier_mult < TIER_UPLIFT.get(best_tier.lower(), 999): best_revenue = round(incremental, 0) best_tier = tier rationale = f"Upgrade from {current_tier} to {tier} adds ${incremental:,.0f} ARR" return best_revenue, best_tier, rationale def estimate_module_revenue( arr: float, product_usage: Dict[str, Dict[str, Any]] ) -> List[Dict[str, Any]]: """Identify cross-sell opportunities from unadopted modules. Returns list of opportunity dicts. """ opportunities: List[Dict[str, Any]] = [] for module_name, module_data in product_usage.items(): adopted = module_data.get("adopted", False) usage_pct = module_data.get("usage_pct", 0) fraction = MODULE_REVENUE_FRACTION.get(module_name.lower(), 0.10) if not adopted and fraction > 0: revenue = round(arr * fraction, 0) opportunities.append({ "module": module_name, "type": "cross_sell", "estimated_revenue": revenue, "effort": "low", "rationale": f"Module not adopted -- ${revenue:,.0f} potential ARR", }) elif adopted and usage_pct < LOW_ADOPTION_THRESHOLD and fraction > 0: # Already adopted but underutilised -- focus on enablement, not expansion pass # Skip -- needs enablement, not a sales motion return opportunities def estimate_department_expansion_revenue( arr: float, current_departments: List[str], potential_departments: List[str], segment: str, ) -> List[Dict[str, Any]]: """Estimate revenue from expanding to new departments.""" opportunities: List[Dict[str, Any]] = [] current_set = {d.lower() for d in current_departments} per_dept_estimate = safe_divide(arr, max(len(current_departments), 1)) for dept in potential_departments: if dept.lower() not in current_set: # Estimate each new department at the average per-department ARR revenue = round(per_dept_estimate * 0.8, 0) # Slight discount for new dept opportunities.append({ "department": dept, "type": "expansion", "estimated_revenue": revenue, "effort": "high", "rationale": f"Expand to {dept} department -- est. ${revenue:,.0f} ARR", }) return opportunities # --------------------------------------------------------------------------- # Priority Scoring # --------------------------------------------------------------------------- def priority_score(revenue: float, effort: str) -> float: """Calculate priority score (higher = better). Favours high revenue with low effort. """ effort_multiplier = {"low": 3.0, "medium": 2.0, "high": 1.0} mult = effort_multiplier.get(effort.lower(), 1.0) # Normalise revenue to a 0-100 scale (assume max single opportunity is $200k) rev_score = clamp(safe_divide(revenue, 2000.0)) # $200k => 100 return round(rev_score * mult, 1) # --------------------------------------------------------------------------- # Main Analysis # --------------------------------------------------------------------------- def analyse_expansion(customer: Dict[str, Any]) -> Dict[str, Any]: """Analyse expansion opportunities for a single customer.""" arr = customer.get("arr", 0) segment = customer.get("segment", "mid-market").lower() contract = customer.get("contract", {}) product_usage = customer.get("product_usage", {}) departments = customer.get("departments", {}) all_opportunities: List[Dict[str, Any]] = [] # 1. Seat expansion licensed = contract.get("licensed_seats", 0) active = contract.get("active_seats", 0) seat_rev, seat_rationale = estimate_seat_expansion_revenue(arr, licensed, active, segment) if seat_rev > 0: all_opportunities.append({ "type": "expansion", "category": "seat_expansion", "estimated_revenue": seat_rev, "effort": "low", "rationale": seat_rationale, "priority_score": priority_score(seat_rev, "low"), }) # 2. Tier upgrade current_tier = contract.get("plan_tier", "").lower() available_tiers = contract.get("available_tiers", []) tier_rev, target_tier, tier_rationale = estimate_tier_upgrade_revenue(arr, current_tier, available_tiers) if tier_rev > 0 and target_tier: all_opportunities.append({ "type": "upsell", "category": "tier_upgrade", "target_tier": target_tier, "estimated_revenue": tier_rev, "effort": "medium", "rationale": tier_rationale, "priority_score": priority_score(tier_rev, "medium"), }) # 3. Module cross-sell module_opps = estimate_module_revenue(arr, product_usage) for opp in module_opps: opp["category"] = "module_cross_sell" opp["priority_score"] = priority_score(opp["estimated_revenue"], opp["effort"]) all_opportunities.append(opp) # 4. Department expansion current_depts = departments.get("current", []) potential_depts = departments.get("potential", []) dept_opps = estimate_department_expansion_revenue(arr, current_depts, potential_depts, segment) for opp in dept_opps: opp["category"] = "department_expansion" opp["priority_score"] = priority_score(opp["estimated_revenue"], opp["effort"]) all_opportunities.append(opp) # Sort by priority score descending all_opportunities.sort(key=lambda o: o["priority_score"], reverse=True) # Adoption depth summary total_modules = len(product_usage) adopted_modules = sum(1 for m in product_usage.values() if m.get("adopted", False)) avg_usage = round( safe_divide( sum(m.get("usage_pct", 0) for m in product_usage.values() if m.get("adopted", False)), max(adopted_modules, 1), ), 1, ) total_estimated_revenue = sum(o["estimated_revenue"] for o in all_opportunities) return { "customer_id": customer.get("customer_id", "unknown"), "name": customer.get("name", "Unknown"), "segment": segment, "arr": arr, "adoption_summary": { "total_modules": total_modules, "adopted_modules": adopted_modules, "adoption_rate": round(safe_divide(adopted_modules, total_modules) * 100, 1) if total_modules > 0 else 0, "avg_usage_pct": avg_usage, "seat_utilisation": round(safe_divide(active, max(licensed, 1)) * 100, 1), "current_tier": current_tier, "departments_covered": len(current_depts), "departments_potential": len(potential_depts), }, "total_estimated_revenue": round(total_estimated_revenue, 0), "opportunity_count": len(all_opportunities), "opportunities": all_opportunities, } # --------------------------------------------------------------------------- # Output Formatting # --------------------------------------------------------------------------- def format_text(results: List[Dict[str, Any]]) -> str: """Format results as human-readable text.""" lines: List[str] = [] lines.append("=" * 72) lines.append("EXPANSION OPPORTUNITY REPORT") lines.append("=" * 72) lines.append("") total_rev = sum(r["total_estimated_revenue"] for r in results) total_opps = sum(r["opportunity_count"] for r in results) lines.append(f"Portfolio Summary: {len(results)} customers") lines.append(f" Total Expansion Revenue Potential: ${total_rev:,.0f}") lines.append(f" Total Opportunities Identified: {total_opps}") lines.append("") # Sort customers by total estimated revenue descending sorted_results = sorted(results, key=lambda r: r["total_estimated_revenue"], reverse=True) for r in sorted_results: lines.append("-" * 72) lines.append(f"Customer: {r['name']} ({r['customer_id']})") lines.append(f"Segment: {r['segment'].title()} | Current ARR: ${r['arr']:,.0f}") lines.append(f"Total Expansion Potential: ${r['total_estimated_revenue']:,.0f} ({r['opportunity_count']} opportunities)") lines.append("") adoption = r["adoption_summary"] lines.append(" Adoption Summary:") lines.append(f" Modules Adopted: {adoption['adopted_modules']}/{adoption['total_modules']} ({adoption['adoption_rate']}%)") lines.append(f" Avg Module Usage: {adoption['avg_usage_pct']}%") lines.append(f" Seat Utilisation: {adoption['seat_utilisation']}%") lines.append(f" Current Tier: {adoption['current_tier'].title()}") lines.append(f" Departments: {adoption['departments_covered']} active, {adoption['departments_potential']} potential") if r["opportunities"]: lines.append("") lines.append(" Opportunities (ranked by priority):") for i, opp in enumerate(r["opportunities"], 1): opp_type = opp.get("type", "unknown").title() category = opp.get("category", "").replace("_", " ").title() rev = opp["estimated_revenue"] effort = opp.get("effort", "unknown").title() pri = opp.get("priority_score", 0) lines.append(f" {i}. [{opp_type}] {category}") lines.append(f" Revenue: ${rev:,.0f} | Effort: {effort} | Priority: {pri}") lines.append(f" {opp.get('rationale', '')}") else: lines.append("") lines.append(" No expansion opportunities identified at this time.") lines.append("") lines.append("=" * 72) return "\n".join(lines) def format_json(results: List[Dict[str, Any]]) -> str: """Format results as JSON.""" total_rev = sum(r["total_estimated_revenue"] for r in results) total_opps = sum(r["opportunity_count"] for r in results) output = { "report": "expansion_opportunities", "summary": { "total_customers": len(results), "total_estimated_revenue": total_rev, "total_opportunities": total_opps, }, "customers": sorted(results, key=lambda r: r["total_estimated_revenue"], reverse=True), } return json.dumps(output, indent=2) # --------------------------------------------------------------------------- # CLI # --------------------------------------------------------------------------- def main() -> None: parser = argparse.ArgumentParser( description="Score expansion opportunities with adoption analysis and revenue estimation." ) parser.add_argument("input_file", help="Path to JSON file containing customer data") parser.add_argument( "--format", choices=["text", "json"], default="text", dest="output_format", help="Output format (default: text)", ) args = parser.parse_args() try: with open(args.input_file, "r") as f: data = json.load(f) except FileNotFoundError: print(f"Error: File not found: {args.input_file}", file=sys.stderr) sys.exit(1) except json.JSONDecodeError as e: print(f"Error: Invalid JSON in {args.input_file}: {e}", file=sys.stderr) sys.exit(1) customers = data.get("customers", []) if not customers: print("Error: No customer records found in input file.", file=sys.stderr) sys.exit(1) results = [analyse_expansion(c) for c in customers] if args.output_format == "json": print(format_json(results)) else: print(format_text(results)) if __name__ == "__main__": main() FILE:customer-success-manager/scripts/health_score_calculator.py #!/usr/bin/env python3 """ Customer Health Score Calculator Multi-dimensional weighted health scoring across usage, engagement, support, and relationship dimensions. Produces Red/Yellow/Green classification with trend analysis and segment-aware benchmarking. Usage: python health_score_calculator.py customer_data.json python health_score_calculator.py customer_data.json --format json """ import argparse import json import sys from typing import Any, Dict, List, Optional, Tuple # --------------------------------------------------------------------------- # Constants # --------------------------------------------------------------------------- DIMENSION_WEIGHTS: Dict[str, float] = { "usage": 0.30, "engagement": 0.25, "support": 0.20, "relationship": 0.25, } # Segment-specific thresholds (green_min, yellow_min) SEGMENT_THRESHOLDS: Dict[str, Dict[str, Tuple[int, int]]] = { "enterprise": {"green": (75, 100), "yellow": (50, 74), "red": (0, 49)}, "mid-market": {"green": (70, 100), "yellow": (45, 69), "red": (0, 44)}, "smb": {"green": (65, 100), "yellow": (40, 64), "red": (0, 39)}, } # Benchmarks per segment for normalising raw metrics SEGMENT_BENCHMARKS: Dict[str, Dict[str, Any]] = { "enterprise": { "login_frequency_target": 90, "feature_adoption_target": 80, "dau_mau_target": 0.50, "support_ticket_volume_max": 5, "meeting_attendance_target": 95, "nps_target": 9, "csat_target": 4.5, "open_tickets_max": 10, "escalation_rate_max": 0.25, "avg_resolution_hours_max": 72, "exec_sponsor_target": 90, "multi_threading_target": 5, }, "mid-market": { "login_frequency_target": 80, "feature_adoption_target": 70, "dau_mau_target": 0.40, "support_ticket_volume_max": 8, "meeting_attendance_target": 85, "nps_target": 8, "csat_target": 4.0, "open_tickets_max": 15, "escalation_rate_max": 0.30, "avg_resolution_hours_max": 96, "exec_sponsor_target": 75, "multi_threading_target": 3, }, "smb": { "login_frequency_target": 70, "feature_adoption_target": 60, "dau_mau_target": 0.30, "support_ticket_volume_max": 10, "meeting_attendance_target": 75, "nps_target": 7, "csat_target": 3.8, "open_tickets_max": 20, "escalation_rate_max": 0.40, "avg_resolution_hours_max": 120, "exec_sponsor_target": 60, "multi_threading_target": 2, }, } RENEWAL_SENTIMENT_SCORES: Dict[str, float] = { "positive": 100.0, "neutral": 60.0, "negative": 20.0, "unknown": 50.0, } # --------------------------------------------------------------------------- # Helpers # --------------------------------------------------------------------------- def safe_divide(numerator: float, denominator: float, default: float = 0.0) -> float: """Return numerator / denominator, or *default* when denominator is zero.""" if denominator == 0: return default return numerator / denominator def clamp(value: float, lo: float = 0.0, hi: float = 100.0) -> float: """Clamp *value* between *lo* and *hi*.""" return max(lo, min(hi, value)) def get_benchmarks(segment: str) -> Dict[str, Any]: """Return benchmarks for the given segment, falling back to mid-market.""" return SEGMENT_BENCHMARKS.get(segment.lower(), SEGMENT_BENCHMARKS["mid-market"]) def get_thresholds(segment: str) -> Dict[str, Tuple[int, int]]: """Return classification thresholds for the given segment.""" return SEGMENT_THRESHOLDS.get(segment.lower(), SEGMENT_THRESHOLDS["mid-market"]) def classify(score: float, segment: str) -> str: """Return 'green', 'yellow', or 'red' classification.""" thresholds = get_thresholds(segment) if score >= thresholds["green"][0]: return "green" elif score >= thresholds["yellow"][0]: return "yellow" return "red" def trend_direction(current: float, previous: Optional[float]) -> str: """Return trend direction string.""" if previous is None: return "no_data" diff = current - previous if diff > 5: return "improving" elif diff < -5: return "declining" return "stable" # --------------------------------------------------------------------------- # Dimension Scoring # --------------------------------------------------------------------------- def score_usage(data: Dict[str, Any], benchmarks: Dict[str, Any]) -> Tuple[float, List[str]]: """Score the usage dimension (0-100). Metrics: login_frequency, feature_adoption, dau_mau_ratio. """ recommendations: List[str] = [] login = clamp(safe_divide(data.get("login_frequency", 0), benchmarks["login_frequency_target"]) * 100) adoption = clamp(safe_divide(data.get("feature_adoption", 0), benchmarks["feature_adoption_target"]) * 100) dau_mau = clamp(safe_divide(data.get("dau_mau_ratio", 0), benchmarks["dau_mau_target"]) * 100) score = round(login * 0.35 + adoption * 0.40 + dau_mau * 0.25, 1) if login < 60: recommendations.append("Login frequency below target -- schedule product engagement session") if adoption < 50: recommendations.append("Feature adoption is low -- recommend guided feature walkthrough") if dau_mau < 50: recommendations.append("DAU/MAU ratio indicates shallow usage -- investigate stickiness barriers") return score, recommendations def score_engagement(data: Dict[str, Any], benchmarks: Dict[str, Any]) -> Tuple[float, List[str]]: """Score the engagement dimension (0-100). Metrics: support_ticket_volume (inverse), meeting_attendance, nps_score, csat_score. """ recommendations: List[str] = [] # Lower ticket volume is better -- invert ticket_vol = data.get("support_ticket_volume", 0) ticket_score = clamp((1.0 - safe_divide(ticket_vol, benchmarks["support_ticket_volume_max"])) * 100) attendance = clamp(safe_divide(data.get("meeting_attendance", 0), benchmarks["meeting_attendance_target"]) * 100) nps_raw = data.get("nps_score", 5) nps_score = clamp(safe_divide(nps_raw, benchmarks["nps_target"]) * 100) csat_raw = data.get("csat_score", 3.0) csat_score = clamp(safe_divide(csat_raw, benchmarks["csat_target"]) * 100) score = round(ticket_score * 0.20 + attendance * 0.30 + nps_score * 0.25 + csat_score * 0.25, 1) if attendance < 60: recommendations.append("Meeting attendance is low -- re-evaluate meeting cadence and agenda value") if nps_raw < 7: recommendations.append("NPS below threshold -- conduct a feedback deep-dive with customer") if csat_raw < 3.5: recommendations.append("CSAT is critically low -- escalate to support leadership") return score, recommendations def score_support(data: Dict[str, Any], benchmarks: Dict[str, Any]) -> Tuple[float, List[str]]: """Score the support dimension (0-100). Metrics: open_tickets (inverse), escalation_rate (inverse), avg_resolution_hours (inverse). """ recommendations: List[str] = [] open_tix = data.get("open_tickets", 0) open_score = clamp((1.0 - safe_divide(open_tix, benchmarks["open_tickets_max"])) * 100) esc_rate = data.get("escalation_rate", 0) esc_score = clamp((1.0 - safe_divide(esc_rate, benchmarks["escalation_rate_max"])) * 100) res_hours = data.get("avg_resolution_hours", 0) res_score = clamp((1.0 - safe_divide(res_hours, benchmarks["avg_resolution_hours_max"])) * 100) score = round(open_score * 0.35 + esc_score * 0.35 + res_score * 0.30, 1) if open_tix > benchmarks["open_tickets_max"] * 0.5: recommendations.append("Open ticket count elevated -- prioritise ticket resolution") if esc_rate > benchmarks["escalation_rate_max"] * 0.5: recommendations.append("Escalation rate too high -- review support process and training") if res_hours > benchmarks["avg_resolution_hours_max"] * 0.5: recommendations.append("Resolution time exceeds SLA target -- engage support leadership") return score, recommendations def score_relationship(data: Dict[str, Any], benchmarks: Dict[str, Any]) -> Tuple[float, List[str]]: """Score the relationship dimension (0-100). Metrics: executive_sponsor_engagement, multi_threading_depth, renewal_sentiment. """ recommendations: List[str] = [] exec_score = clamp(safe_divide(data.get("executive_sponsor_engagement", 0), benchmarks["exec_sponsor_target"]) * 100) threading = data.get("multi_threading_depth", 1) thread_score = clamp(safe_divide(threading, benchmarks["multi_threading_target"]) * 100) sentiment_str = data.get("renewal_sentiment", "unknown").lower() sentiment_score = RENEWAL_SENTIMENT_SCORES.get(sentiment_str, 50.0) score = round(exec_score * 0.35 + thread_score * 0.30 + sentiment_score * 0.35, 1) if exec_score < 50: recommendations.append("Executive sponsor engagement is weak -- schedule executive alignment meeting") if threading < 2: recommendations.append("Single-threaded relationship -- expand contacts across departments") if sentiment_str == "negative": recommendations.append("Renewal sentiment is negative -- initiate save plan immediately") return score, recommendations # --------------------------------------------------------------------------- # Main Scoring # --------------------------------------------------------------------------- def calculate_health_score(customer: Dict[str, Any]) -> Dict[str, Any]: """Calculate the overall health score for a single customer.""" segment = customer.get("segment", "mid-market").lower() benchmarks = get_benchmarks(segment) # Score each dimension usage_score, usage_recs = score_usage(customer.get("usage", {}), benchmarks) engagement_score, engagement_recs = score_engagement(customer.get("engagement", {}), benchmarks) support_score, support_recs = score_support(customer.get("support", {}), benchmarks) relationship_score, relationship_recs = score_relationship(customer.get("relationship", {}), benchmarks) # Weighted overall overall = round( usage_score * DIMENSION_WEIGHTS["usage"] + engagement_score * DIMENSION_WEIGHTS["engagement"] + support_score * DIMENSION_WEIGHTS["support"] + relationship_score * DIMENSION_WEIGHTS["relationship"], 1, ) classification = classify(overall, segment) # Trend analysis prev = customer.get("previous_period", {}) trends = { "usage": trend_direction(usage_score, prev.get("usage_score")), "engagement": trend_direction(engagement_score, prev.get("engagement_score")), "support": trend_direction(support_score, prev.get("support_score")), "relationship": trend_direction(relationship_score, prev.get("relationship_score")), } overall_prev = prev.get("overall_score") trends["overall"] = trend_direction(overall, overall_prev) # Combine recommendations all_recs = usage_recs + engagement_recs + support_recs + relationship_recs return { "customer_id": customer.get("customer_id", "unknown"), "name": customer.get("name", "Unknown"), "segment": segment, "arr": customer.get("arr", 0), "overall_score": overall, "classification": classification, "dimensions": { "usage": {"score": usage_score, "weight": "30%", "classification": classify(usage_score, segment)}, "engagement": {"score": engagement_score, "weight": "25%", "classification": classify(engagement_score, segment)}, "support": {"score": support_score, "weight": "20%", "classification": classify(support_score, segment)}, "relationship": {"score": relationship_score, "weight": "25%", "classification": classify(relationship_score, segment)}, }, "trends": trends, "recommendations": all_recs, } # --------------------------------------------------------------------------- # Output Formatting # --------------------------------------------------------------------------- CLASSIFICATION_LABELS = { "green": "HEALTHY", "yellow": "NEEDS ATTENTION", "red": "AT RISK", } def format_text(results: List[Dict[str, Any]]) -> str: """Format results as human-readable text.""" lines: List[str] = [] lines.append("=" * 72) lines.append("CUSTOMER HEALTH SCORE REPORT") lines.append("=" * 72) lines.append("") # Portfolio summary total = len(results) green_count = sum(1 for r in results if r["classification"] == "green") yellow_count = sum(1 for r in results if r["classification"] == "yellow") red_count = sum(1 for r in results if r["classification"] == "red") avg_score = round(safe_divide(sum(r["overall_score"] for r in results), total), 1) lines.append(f"Portfolio Summary: {total} customers") lines.append(f" Average Health Score: {avg_score}/100") lines.append(f" Green (Healthy): {green_count}") lines.append(f" Yellow (Attention): {yellow_count}") lines.append(f" Red (At Risk): {red_count}") lines.append("") for r in results: label = CLASSIFICATION_LABELS.get(r["classification"], "UNKNOWN") lines.append("-" * 72) lines.append(f"Customer: {r['name']} ({r['customer_id']})") lines.append(f"Segment: {r['segment'].title()} | ARR: ${r['arr']:,.0f}") lines.append(f"Overall Score: {r['overall_score']}/100 [{label}]") lines.append("") lines.append(" Dimension Scores:") for dim_name, dim_data in r["dimensions"].items(): dim_label = CLASSIFICATION_LABELS.get(dim_data["classification"], "") lines.append(f" {dim_name.title():15s} {dim_data['score']:6.1f}/100 ({dim_data['weight']}) [{dim_label}]") lines.append("") lines.append(" Trends:") for dim_name, direction in r["trends"].items(): arrow = {"improving": "+", "declining": "-", "stable": "=", "no_data": "?"} lines.append(f" {dim_name.title():15s} {arrow.get(direction, '?')} {direction}") if r["recommendations"]: lines.append("") lines.append(" Recommendations:") for i, rec in enumerate(r["recommendations"], 1): lines.append(f" {i}. {rec}") lines.append("") lines.append("=" * 72) return "\n".join(lines) def format_json(results: List[Dict[str, Any]]) -> str: """Format results as JSON.""" total = len(results) output = { "report": "customer_health_scores", "summary": { "total_customers": total, "average_score": round(safe_divide(sum(r["overall_score"] for r in results), total), 1), "green_count": sum(1 for r in results if r["classification"] == "green"), "yellow_count": sum(1 for r in results if r["classification"] == "yellow"), "red_count": sum(1 for r in results if r["classification"] == "red"), }, "customers": results, } return json.dumps(output, indent=2) # --------------------------------------------------------------------------- # CLI # --------------------------------------------------------------------------- def main() -> None: parser = argparse.ArgumentParser( description="Calculate multi-dimensional customer health scores with trend analysis." ) parser.add_argument("input_file", help="Path to JSON file containing customer data") parser.add_argument( "--format", choices=["text", "json"], default="text", dest="output_format", help="Output format (default: text)", ) args = parser.parse_args() try: with open(args.input_file, "r") as f: data = json.load(f) except FileNotFoundError: print(f"Error: File not found: {args.input_file}", file=sys.stderr) sys.exit(1) except json.JSONDecodeError as e: print(f"Error: Invalid JSON in {args.input_file}: {e}", file=sys.stderr) sys.exit(1) customers = data.get("customers", []) if not customers: print("Error: No customer records found in input file.", file=sys.stderr) sys.exit(1) results = [calculate_health_score(c) for c in customers] if args.output_format == "json": print(format_json(results)) else: print(format_text(results)) if __name__ == "__main__": main() FILE:revenue-operations/SKILL.md --- name: "revenue-operations" description: Analyzes sales pipeline health, revenue forecasting accuracy, and go-to-market efficiency metrics for SaaS revenue optimization. Use when analyzing sales pipeline coverage, forecasting revenue, evaluating go-to-market performance, reviewing sales metrics, assessing pipeline analysis, tracking forecast accuracy with MAPE, calculating GTM efficiency, or measuring sales efficiency and unit economics for SaaS teams. --- # Revenue Operations Pipeline analysis, forecast accuracy tracking, and GTM efficiency measurement for SaaS revenue teams. > **Output formats:** All scripts support `--format text` (human-readable) and `--format json` (dashboards/integrations). --- ## Quick Start ```bash # Analyze pipeline health and coverage python scripts/pipeline_analyzer.py --input assets/sample_pipeline_data.json --format text # Track forecast accuracy over multiple periods python scripts/forecast_accuracy_tracker.py assets/sample_forecast_data.json --format text # Calculate GTM efficiency metrics python scripts/gtm_efficiency_calculator.py assets/sample_gtm_data.json --format text ``` --- ## Tools Overview ### 1. Pipeline Analyzer Analyzes sales pipeline health including coverage ratios, stage conversion rates, deal velocity, aging risks, and concentration risks. **Input:** JSON file with deals, quota, and stage configuration **Output:** Coverage ratios, conversion rates, velocity metrics, aging flags, risk assessment **Usage:** ```bash python scripts/pipeline_analyzer.py --input pipeline.json --format text ``` **Key Metrics Calculated:** - **Pipeline Coverage Ratio** -- Total pipeline value / quota target (healthy: 3-4x) - **Stage Conversion Rates** -- Stage-to-stage progression rates - **Sales Velocity** -- (Opportunities x Avg Deal Size x Win Rate) / Avg Sales Cycle - **Deal Aging** -- Flags deals exceeding 2x average cycle time per stage - **Concentration Risk** -- Warns when >40% of pipeline is in a single deal - **Coverage Gap Analysis** -- Identifies quarters with insufficient pipeline **Input Schema:** ```json { "quota": 500000, "stages": ["Discovery", "Qualification", "Proposal", "Negotiation", "Closed Won"], "average_cycle_days": 45, "deals": [ { "id": "D001", "name": "Acme Corp", "stage": "Proposal", "value": 85000, "age_days": 32, "close_date": "2025-03-15", "owner": "rep_1" } ] } ``` ### 2. Forecast Accuracy Tracker Tracks forecast accuracy over time using MAPE, detects systematic bias, analyzes trends, and provides category-level breakdowns. **Input:** JSON file with forecast periods and optional category breakdowns **Output:** MAPE score, bias analysis, trends, category breakdown, accuracy rating **Usage:** ```bash python scripts/forecast_accuracy_tracker.py forecast_data.json --format text ``` **Key Metrics Calculated:** - **MAPE** -- mean(|actual - forecast| / |actual|) x 100 - **Forecast Bias** -- Over-forecasting (positive) vs under-forecasting (negative) tendency - **Weighted Accuracy** -- MAPE weighted by deal value for materiality - **Period Trends** -- Improving, stable, or declining accuracy over time - **Category Breakdown** -- Accuracy by rep, product, segment, or any custom dimension **Accuracy Ratings:** | Rating | MAPE Range | Interpretation | |--------|-----------|----------------| | Excellent | <10% | Highly predictable, data-driven process | | Good | 10-15% | Reliable forecasting with minor variance | | Fair | 15-25% | Needs process improvement | | Poor | >25% | Significant forecasting methodology gaps | **Input Schema:** ```json { "forecast_periods": [ {"period": "2025-Q1", "forecast": 480000, "actual": 520000}, {"period": "2025-Q2", "forecast": 550000, "actual": 510000} ], "category_breakdowns": { "by_rep": [ {"category": "Rep A", "forecast": 200000, "actual": 210000}, {"category": "Rep B", "forecast": 280000, "actual": 310000} ] } } ``` ### 3. GTM Efficiency Calculator Calculates core SaaS GTM efficiency metrics with industry benchmarking, ratings, and improvement recommendations. **Input:** JSON file with revenue, cost, and customer metrics **Output:** Magic Number, LTV:CAC, CAC Payback, Burn Multiple, Rule of 40, NDR with ratings **Usage:** ```bash python scripts/gtm_efficiency_calculator.py gtm_data.json --format text ``` **Key Metrics Calculated:** | Metric | Formula | Target | |--------|---------|--------| | Magic Number | Net New ARR / Prior Period S&M Spend | >0.75 | | LTV:CAC | (ARPA x Gross Margin / Churn Rate) / CAC | >3:1 | | CAC Payback | CAC / (ARPA x Gross Margin) months | <18 months | | Burn Multiple | Net Burn / Net New ARR | <2x | | Rule of 40 | Revenue Growth % + FCF Margin % | >40% | | Net Dollar Retention | (Begin ARR + Expansion - Contraction - Churn) / Begin ARR | >110% | **Input Schema:** ```json { "revenue": { "current_arr": 5000000, "prior_arr": 3800000, "net_new_arr": 1200000, "arpa_monthly": 2500, "revenue_growth_pct": 31.6 }, "costs": { "sales_marketing_spend": 1800000, "cac": 18000, "gross_margin_pct": 78, "total_operating_expense": 6500000, "net_burn": 1500000, "fcf_margin_pct": 8.4 }, "customers": { "beginning_arr": 3800000, "expansion_arr": 600000, "contraction_arr": 100000, "churned_arr": 300000, "annual_churn_rate_pct": 8 } } ``` --- ## Revenue Operations Workflows ### Weekly Pipeline Review Use this workflow for your weekly pipeline inspection cadence. 1. **Verify input data:** Confirm pipeline export is current and all required fields (stage, value, close_date, owner) are populated before proceeding. 2. **Generate pipeline report:** ```bash python scripts/pipeline_analyzer.py --input current_pipeline.json --format text ``` 3. **Cross-check output totals** against your CRM source system to confirm data integrity. 4. **Review key indicators:** - Pipeline coverage ratio (is it above 3x quota?) - Deals aging beyond threshold (which deals need intervention?) - Concentration risk (are we over-reliant on a few large deals?) - Stage distribution (is there a healthy funnel shape?) 5. **Document using template:** Use `assets/pipeline_review_template.md` 6. **Action items:** Address aging deals, redistribute pipeline concentration, fill coverage gaps ### Forecast Accuracy Review Use monthly or quarterly to evaluate and improve forecasting discipline. 1. **Verify input data:** Confirm all forecast periods have corresponding actuals and no periods are missing before running. 2. **Generate accuracy report:** ```bash python scripts/forecast_accuracy_tracker.py forecast_history.json --format text ``` 3. **Cross-check actuals** against closed-won records in your CRM before drawing conclusions. 4. **Analyze patterns:** - Is MAPE trending down (improving)? - Which reps or segments have the highest error rates? - Is there systematic over- or under-forecasting? 5. **Document using template:** Use `assets/forecast_report_template.md` 6. **Improvement actions:** Coach high-bias reps, adjust methodology, improve data hygiene ### GTM Efficiency Audit Use quarterly or during board prep to evaluate go-to-market efficiency. 1. **Verify input data:** Confirm revenue, cost, and customer figures reconcile with finance records before running. 2. **Calculate efficiency metrics:** ```bash python scripts/gtm_efficiency_calculator.py quarterly_data.json --format text ``` 3. **Cross-check computed ARR and spend totals** against your finance system before sharing results. 4. **Benchmark against targets:** - Magic Number (>0.75) - LTV:CAC (>3:1) - CAC Payback (<18 months) - Rule of 40 (>40%) 5. **Document using template:** Use `assets/gtm_dashboard_template.md` 6. **Strategic decisions:** Adjust spend allocation, optimize channels, improve retention ### Quarterly Business Review Combine all three tools for a comprehensive QBR analysis. 1. Run pipeline analyzer for forward-looking coverage 2. Run forecast tracker for backward-looking accuracy 3. Run GTM calculator for efficiency benchmarks 4. Cross-reference pipeline health with forecast accuracy 5. Align GTM efficiency metrics with growth targets --- ## Reference Documentation | Reference | Description | |-----------|-------------| | [RevOps Metrics Guide](references/revops-metrics-guide.md) | Complete metrics hierarchy, definitions, formulas, and interpretation | | [Pipeline Management Framework](references/pipeline-management-framework.md) | Pipeline best practices, stage definitions, conversion benchmarks | | [GTM Efficiency Benchmarks](references/gtm-efficiency-benchmarks.md) | SaaS benchmarks by stage, industry standards, improvement strategies | --- ## Templates | Template | Use Case | |----------|----------| | [Pipeline Review Template](assets/pipeline_review_template.md) | Weekly/monthly pipeline inspection documentation | | [Forecast Report Template](assets/forecast_report_template.md) | Forecast accuracy reporting and trend analysis | | [GTM Dashboard Template](assets/gtm_dashboard_template.md) | GTM efficiency dashboard for leadership review | | [Sample Pipeline Data](assets/sample_pipeline_data.json) | Example input for pipeline_analyzer.py | | [Expected Output](assets/expected_output.json) | Reference output from pipeline_analyzer.py | FILE:revenue-operations/assets/expected_output.json { "coverage": { "total_pipeline_value": 1105000, "quota": 500000, "coverage_ratio": 2.21, "rating": "At Risk", "target": "3.0x - 4.0x" }, "stage_conversions": [ { "from_stage": "Discovery", "to_stage": "Qualification", "from_count": 17, "to_count": 12, "conversion_rate_pct": 70.6 }, { "from_stage": "Qualification", "to_stage": "Proposal", "from_count": 12, "to_count": 9, "conversion_rate_pct": 75.0 }, { "from_stage": "Proposal", "to_stage": "Negotiation", "from_count": 9, "to_count": 5, "conversion_rate_pct": 55.6 }, { "from_stage": "Negotiation", "to_stage": "Closed Won", "from_count": 5, "to_count": 2, "conversion_rate_pct": 40.0 } ], "velocity": { "num_opportunities": 17, "avg_deal_size": 74588.24, "win_rate_pct": 11.8, "avg_cycle_days": 32.5, "velocity_per_day": 4594.2, "velocity_per_month": 137826.09 }, "aging": { "global_aging_threshold_days": 90, "stage_thresholds": { "Discovery": 90, "Qualification": 78, "Proposal": 67, "Negotiation": 56 }, "total_open_deals": 15, "healthy_deals": 13, "at_risk_deals": 2, "aging_deals": [ { "id": "D011", "name": "Vertex Solutions", "stage": "Proposal", "age_days": 95, "threshold_days": 67, "days_over": 28, "value": 110000 }, { "id": "D014", "name": "Horizon Telecom", "stage": "Negotiation", "age_days": 60, "threshold_days": 56, "days_over": 4, "value": 250000 } ] }, "risk": { "overall_risk": "MEDIUM", "risk_factors_count": 3, "concentration_risks": [], "has_concentration_risk": false, "stage_distribution": { "Discovery": { "count": 5, "value": 194000, "pct_of_pipeline": 17.6 }, "Qualification": { "count": 3, "value": 150000, "pct_of_pipeline": 13.6 }, "Proposal": { "count": 4, "value": 333000, "pct_of_pipeline": 30.1 }, "Negotiation": { "count": 3, "value": 428000, "pct_of_pipeline": 38.7 } }, "empty_stages": [], "coverage_gaps": [ { "quarter": "2025-Q2", "pipeline_value": 344000, "quarterly_target": 125000.0, "coverage_ratio": 2.75, "gap": "Below 3x target" } ] } } FILE:revenue-operations/assets/forecast_report_template.md # Forecast Accuracy Report - [Period] ## Report Details - **Prepared By:** [Name] - **Report Date:** [YYYY-MM-DD] - **Period Analyzed:** [Start Period] to [End Period] - **Periods Covered:** [N] periods --- ## Executive Summary | Metric | Value | Rating | Trend | |--------|-------|--------|-------| | MAPE | _% | | | | Weighted MAPE | _% | | | | Forecast Bias | _% | | | | Bias Direction | | | | **Accuracy Rating:** - Excellent (<10%) / Good (10-15%) / Fair (15-25%) / Poor (>25%) **Key Finding:** [1-2 sentence summary of forecast accuracy status] --- ## Period-by-Period Analysis | Period | Forecast | Actual | Variance | Error % | Bias | |--------|----------|--------|----------|---------|------| | | $_ | $_ | $_ | _% | Over/Under | | | $_ | $_ | $_ | _% | Over/Under | | | $_ | $_ | $_ | _% | Over/Under | | | $_ | $_ | $_ | _% | Over/Under | | | $_ | $_ | $_ | _% | Over/Under | | | $_ | $_ | $_ | _% | Over/Under | --- ## Bias Analysis ### Overall Bias - **Direction:** [Over-forecasting / Under-forecasting / Balanced] - **Bias Magnitude:** _% - **Over-forecast Periods:** _ of _ - **Under-forecast Periods:** _ of _ - **Bias Ratio:** _ (1.0 = always over, 0.0 = always under, 0.5 = balanced) ### Interpretation [What does the bias pattern tell us about our forecasting process? Is it systematic or random?] ### Root Cause [Identify the primary drivers of bias: optimistic deal assessment, poor stage qualification, sandbagging, late-arriving deals, etc.] --- ## Trend Analysis ### Accuracy Trend - **Direction:** [Improving / Stable / Declining] - **Early Period MAPE:** _% - **Recent Period MAPE:** _% - **MAPE Change:** _% (positive = worsening, negative = improving) ### Trend Chart (Text) ``` Period Error% Trend Q1 __% ████████ Q2 __% ██████████ Q3 __% ██████ Q4 __% ████████████ ``` --- ## Category Breakdown ### By Rep | Rep | Forecast | Actual | Error % | Bias | Rating | |-----|----------|--------|---------|------|--------| | | $_ | $_ | _% | | | | | $_ | $_ | _% | | | | | $_ | $_ | _% | | | | | $_ | $_ | _% | | | **Overall Rep MAPE:** _% ### By Segment | Segment | Forecast | Actual | Error % | Bias | Rating | |---------|----------|--------|---------|------|--------| | Enterprise | $_ | $_ | _% | | | | Mid-Market | $_ | $_ | _% | | | | SMB | $_ | $_ | _% | | | **Overall Segment MAPE:** _% ### By Product (if applicable) | Product | Forecast | Actual | Error % | Bias | Rating | |---------|----------|--------|---------|------|--------| | | $_ | $_ | _% | | | | | $_ | $_ | _% | | | --- ## Recommendations ### Immediate Actions (This Quarter) 1. **[Action]** -- [Why and expected impact] 2. **[Action]** -- [Why and expected impact] 3. **[Action]** -- [Why and expected impact] ### Process Improvements (Next Quarter) 1. **[Improvement]** -- [Implementation plan] 2. **[Improvement]** -- [Implementation plan] ### Coaching Focus Areas | Rep/Team | Issue | Coaching Action | Target | |----------|-------|-----------------|--------| | | | | | | | | | | --- ## Forecast Methodology Notes ### Current Methodology [Describe the current forecasting methodology: weighted pipeline, commit/upside categories, AI-assisted, etc.] ### Methodology Changes This Period [Any changes to the forecasting process or methodology during the reporting period] ### Data Quality Issues [Note any data quality issues that may affect accuracy: missing close dates, inconsistent stage definitions, CRM hygiene gaps] --- ## Next Steps | # | Action | Owner | Due Date | |---|--------|-------|----------| | 1 | | | | | 2 | | | | | 3 | | | | FILE:revenue-operations/assets/gtm_dashboard_template.md # GTM Efficiency Dashboard - [Quarter/Period] ## Dashboard Details - **Prepared By:** [Name] - **Report Date:** [YYYY-MM-DD] - **Period:** [Quarter or Date Range] - **Company Stage:** [Seed / Series A / Series B / Series C+ / Growth] --- ## Metrics At A Glance | Metric | Value | Rating | Target | Trend | vs. Last Period | |--------|-------|--------|--------|-------|-----------------| | Magic Number | _ | | >0.75 | | | | LTV:CAC | _:1 | | >3:1 | | | | CAC Payback | _ mo | | <18 mo | | | | Burn Multiple | _x | | <2x | | | | Rule of 40 | _% | | >40% | | | | NDR | _% | | >110% | | | **Rating Legend:** Green = Healthy | Yellow = Monitor | Red = Action Required **Overall GTM Health:** [Strong / Healthy / Needs Attention / Critical] --- ## Detailed Metric Analysis ### Magic Number | Component | Value | |-----------|-------| | Net New ARR | $_ | | Prior Period S&M Spend | $_ | | **Magic Number** | **_** | - **Rating:** [Green / Yellow / Red] - **Percentile:** [Top 10% / Top 25% / Median / Below Median] - **Trend:** [Improving / Stable / Declining] - **Interpretation:** [What does this metric tell us about GTM spend efficiency?] ### LTV:CAC Ratio | Component | Value | |-----------|-------| | ARPA (Monthly) | $_ | | ARPA (Annual) | $_ | | Gross Margin | _% | | Annual Churn Rate | _% | | **Customer LTV** | **$_** | | Customer Acquisition Cost | $_ | | **LTV:CAC Ratio** | **_:1** | - **Rating:** [Green / Yellow / Red] - **Percentile:** [Top 10% / Top 25% / Median / Below Median] - **Trend:** [Improving / Stable / Declining] - **Interpretation:** [Are unit economics sustainable?] ### CAC Payback Period | Component | Value | |-----------|-------| | CAC | $_ | | Monthly Gross Margin Contribution | $_ | | **CAC Payback** | **_ months** | - **Rating:** [Green / Yellow / Red] - **Percentile:** [Top 10% / Top 25% / Median / Below Median] - **Trend:** [Improving / Stable / Declining] - **Interpretation:** [How quickly are we recovering acquisition costs?] ### Burn Multiple | Component | Value | |-----------|-------| | Net Burn | $_ | | Net New ARR | $_ | | **Burn Multiple** | **_x** | - **Rating:** [Green / Yellow / Red] - **Percentile:** [Top 10% / Top 25% / Median / Below Median] - **Trend:** [Improving / Stable / Declining] - **Interpretation:** [Is growth capital-efficient?] ### Rule of 40 | Component | Value | |-----------|-------| | Revenue Growth Rate | _% | | FCF Margin | _% | | **Rule of 40 Score** | **_%** | - **Rating:** [Green / Yellow / Red] - **Percentile:** [Top 10% / Top 25% / Median / Below Median] - **Trend:** [Improving / Stable / Declining] - **Interpretation:** [Is the growth-profitability balance healthy?] ### Net Dollar Retention | Component | Value | |-----------|-------| | Beginning ARR | $_ | | Expansion ARR | +$_ | | Contraction ARR | -$_ | | Churned ARR | -$_ | | Ending ARR | $_ | | **NDR** | **_%** | - **Rating:** [Green / Yellow / Red] - **Percentile:** [Top 10% / Top 25% / Median / Below Median] - **Trend:** [Improving / Stable / Declining] - **Interpretation:** [Are we growing revenue from the existing customer base?] --- ## Quarterly Trend | Metric | Q-3 | Q-2 | Q-1 | Current | Direction | |--------|-----|-----|-----|---------|-----------| | Magic Number | _ | _ | _ | _ | | | LTV:CAC | _:1 | _:1 | _:1 | _:1 | | | CAC Payback | _ mo | _ mo | _ mo | _ mo | | | Burn Multiple | _x | _x | _x | _x | | | Rule of 40 | _% | _% | _% | _% | | | NDR | _% | _% | _% | _% | | --- ## Benchmark Comparison | Metric | Our Value | Stage Median | Top Quartile | Gap to Top Quartile | |--------|-----------|-------------|--------------|---------------------| | Magic Number | _ | _ | _ | _ | | LTV:CAC | _:1 | _:1 | _:1 | _ | | CAC Payback | _ mo | _ mo | _ mo | _ mo | | Burn Multiple | _x | _x | _x | _ | | Rule of 40 | _% | _% | _% | _% | | NDR | _% | _% | _% | _% | --- ## Revenue Composition ### ARR Bridge ``` Beginning ARR: $____________ + New Logo ARR: $____________ + Expansion ARR: $____________ - Contraction ARR: $____________ - Churned ARR: $____________ = Ending ARR: $____________ Net New ARR: $____________ Growth Rate: ____________% ``` ### Cost Structure ``` S&M Spend: $____________ (___% of revenue) R&D Spend: $____________ (___% of revenue) G&A Spend: $____________ (___% of revenue) Total OpEx: $____________ Net Burn: $____________ Gross Margin: ____________% ``` --- ## Strategic Recommendations ### Top 3 Priorities 1. **[Priority]** - Current state: [Where we are] - Target: [Where we need to be] - Action plan: [How to get there] - Expected impact: [Metric improvement] - Timeline: [When] 2. **[Priority]** - Current state: - Target: - Action plan: - Expected impact: - Timeline: 3. **[Priority]** - Current state: - Target: - Action plan: - Expected impact: - Timeline: ### Investment Recommendations | Area | Current Spend | Recommended | Rationale | |------|--------------|-------------|-----------| | | $_ | $_ | | | | $_ | $_ | | | | $_ | $_ | | --- ## Next Steps | # | Action | Owner | Due Date | Success Metric | |---|--------|-------|----------|---------------| | 1 | | | | | | 2 | | | | | | 3 | | | | | | 4 | | | | | | 5 | | | | | FILE:revenue-operations/assets/pipeline_review_template.md # Pipeline Review - [Date] ## Review Period - **Review Type:** Weekly / Monthly (circle one) - **Prepared By:** [Name] - **Review Date:** [YYYY-MM-DD] - **Period Covered:** [Start Date] to [End Date] --- ## Executive Summary | Metric | Current | Last Period | Target | Status | |--------|---------|-------------|--------|--------| | Pipeline Coverage | _x | _x | 3-4x | | | Total Pipeline Value | $_ | $_ | $_ | | | Net Pipeline Change | $_ | $_ | >$0 | | | Deals in Pipeline | _ | _ | _ | | | Avg Deal Size | $_ | $_ | $_ | | | Sales Velocity ($/mo) | $_ | $_ | $_ | | **Overall Assessment:** [1-2 sentence summary of pipeline health] --- ## Coverage Analysis ### By Quarter | Quarter | Pipeline | Target | Coverage | Status | |---------|----------|--------|----------|--------| | Current Quarter | $_ | $_ | _x | | | Next Quarter | $_ | $_ | _x | | | Q+2 | $_ | $_ | _x | | ### By Segment | Segment | Pipeline | Target | Coverage | Notes | |---------|----------|--------|----------|-------| | Enterprise | $_ | $_ | _x | | | Mid-Market | $_ | $_ | _x | | | SMB | $_ | $_ | _x | | --- ## Stage Distribution | Stage | # Deals | Value | % of Pipeline | Conversion Rate | |-------|---------|-------|---------------|-----------------| | Discovery | _ | $_ | _% | _% | | Qualification | _ | $_ | _% | _% | | Proposal | _ | $_ | _% | _% | | Negotiation | _ | $_ | _% | _% | **Funnel Health:** [Healthy / Top-heavy / Bottom-heavy / Gaps identified] --- ## Top Deals Review (S3+) | Deal | Stage | Value | Age | Close Date | Risk | Next Step | |------|-------|-------|-----|------------|------|-----------| | | | $_ | _d | | | | | | | $_ | _d | | | | | | | $_ | _d | | | | | | | $_ | _d | | | | | | | $_ | _d | | | | --- ## Risk Assessment ### Concentration Risk - **Largest deal as % of pipeline:** _% - **Top 3 deals as % of pipeline:** _% - **Risk Level:** [Low / Medium / High] - **Mitigation:** [Actions to diversify] ### Aging Deals | Deal | Stage | Age | Threshold | Days Over | Action Required | |------|-------|-----|-----------|-----------|-----------------| | | | _d | _d | +_d | | | | | _d | _d | +_d | | ### Deals Pushed from Last Period | Deal | Original Close | New Close | Times Pushed | Reason | |------|---------------|-----------|-------------|--------| | | | | | | | | | | | | --- ## Pipeline Movement ### Created This Period | Deal | Source | Value | Stage | Expected Close | |------|--------|-------|-------|---------------| | | | $_ | | | | | | $_ | | | **Total Created:** $_ ### Advanced This Period | Deal | From Stage | To Stage | Value | |------|-----------|----------|-------| | | | | $_ | | | | | $_ | ### Closed Won This Period | Deal | Value | Cycle Days | Source | |------|-------|-----------|--------| | | $_ | _d | | | | $_ | _d | | **Total Closed Won:** $_ ### Closed Lost This Period | Deal | Value | Stage Lost | Loss Reason | |------|-------|-----------|-------------| | | $_ | | | | | $_ | | | **Total Closed Lost:** $_ --- ## Action Items | # | Action | Owner | Due Date | Priority | |---|--------|-------|----------|----------| | 1 | | | | | | 2 | | | | | | 3 | | | | | | 4 | | | | | | 5 | | | | | --- ## Notes [Additional context, observations, or discussion points for the review meeting] FILE:revenue-operations/assets/sample_forecast_data.json { "forecast_periods": [ {"period": "2024-Q1", "forecast": 420000, "actual": 445000}, {"period": "2024-Q2", "forecast": 480000, "actual": 460000}, {"period": "2024-Q3", "forecast": 510000, "actual": 525000}, {"period": "2024-Q4", "forecast": 550000, "actual": 510000}, {"period": "2025-Q1", "forecast": 520000, "actual": 540000}, {"period": "2025-Q2", "forecast": 580000, "actual": 560000} ], "category_breakdowns": { "by_rep": [ {"category": "Sarah Chen", "forecast": 210000, "actual": 225000}, {"category": "Marcus Johnson", "forecast": 185000, "actual": 160000}, {"category": "Priya Patel", "forecast": 125000, "actual": 135000}, {"category": "Alex Rivera", "forecast": 60000, "actual": 40000} ], "by_segment": [ {"category": "Enterprise", "forecast": 320000, "actual": 310000}, {"category": "Mid-Market", "forecast": 180000, "actual": 175000}, {"category": "SMB", "forecast": 80000, "actual": 75000} ] } } FILE:revenue-operations/assets/sample_gtm_data.json { "revenue": { "current_arr": 5000000, "prior_arr": 3800000, "net_new_arr": 1200000, "arpa_monthly": 2500, "revenue_growth_pct": 31.6 }, "costs": { "sales_marketing_spend": 1800000, "cac": 18000, "gross_margin_pct": 78, "total_operating_expense": 6500000, "net_burn": 1500000, "fcf_margin_pct": 8.4 }, "customers": { "beginning_arr": 3800000, "expansion_arr": 600000, "contraction_arr": 100000, "churned_arr": 300000, "annual_churn_rate_pct": 8 } } FILE:revenue-operations/assets/sample_pipeline_data.json { "quota": 500000, "stages": ["Discovery", "Qualification", "Proposal", "Negotiation", "Closed Won"], "average_cycle_days": 45, "deals": [ { "id": "D001", "name": "Acme Corp", "stage": "Proposal", "value": 85000, "age_days": 32, "close_date": "2025-03-15", "owner": "rep_1" }, { "id": "D002", "name": "TechFlow Inc", "stage": "Discovery", "value": 42000, "age_days": 8, "close_date": "2025-04-30", "owner": "rep_2" }, { "id": "D003", "name": "GlobalData Systems", "stage": "Negotiation", "value": 120000, "age_days": 55, "close_date": "2025-02-28", "owner": "rep_1" }, { "id": "D004", "name": "Pinnacle Software", "stage": "Qualification", "value": 35000, "age_days": 18, "close_date": "2025-04-15", "owner": "rep_3" }, { "id": "D005", "name": "Meridian Health", "stage": "Proposal", "value": 95000, "age_days": 40, "close_date": "2025-03-20", "owner": "rep_2" }, { "id": "D006", "name": "CloudVault", "stage": "Discovery", "value": 28000, "age_days": 5, "close_date": "2025-05-15", "owner": "rep_1" }, { "id": "D007", "name": "Nexus Financial", "stage": "Closed Won", "value": 72000, "age_days": 38, "close_date": "2025-01-31", "owner": "rep_3" }, { "id": "D008", "name": "Urban Analytics", "stage": "Negotiation", "value": 58000, "age_days": 42, "close_date": "2025-03-05", "owner": "rep_2" }, { "id": "D009", "name": "Redwood Logistics", "stage": "Discovery", "value": 31000, "age_days": 12, "close_date": "2025-05-01", "owner": "rep_3" }, { "id": "D010", "name": "Summit Enterprises", "stage": "Qualification", "value": 48000, "age_days": 22, "close_date": "2025-04-10", "owner": "rep_1" }, { "id": "D011", "name": "Vertex Solutions", "stage": "Proposal", "value": 110000, "age_days": 95, "close_date": "2025-03-01", "owner": "rep_2" }, { "id": "D012", "name": "DataBridge AI", "stage": "Discovery", "value": 55000, "age_days": 3, "close_date": "2025-06-15", "owner": "rep_1" }, { "id": "D013", "name": "Atlas Manufacturing", "stage": "Qualification", "value": 67000, "age_days": 28, "close_date": "2025-04-20", "owner": "rep_3" }, { "id": "D014", "name": "Horizon Telecom", "stage": "Negotiation", "value": 250000, "age_days": 60, "close_date": "2025-03-10", "owner": "rep_1" }, { "id": "D015", "name": "BlueShift Labs", "stage": "Proposal", "value": 43000, "age_days": 35, "close_date": "2025-03-25", "owner": "rep_3" }, { "id": "D016", "name": "Crestview Partners", "stage": "Discovery", "value": 38000, "age_days": 15, "close_date": "2025-05-20", "owner": "rep_2" }, { "id": "D017", "name": "Ironclad Security", "stage": "Closed Won", "value": 91000, "age_days": 44, "close_date": "2025-02-10", "owner": "rep_1" } ] } FILE:revenue-operations/references/gtm-efficiency-benchmarks.md # GTM Efficiency Benchmarks SaaS benchmarks by funding stage, industry standards, and strategies for improving go-to-market efficiency. --- ## Benchmarks by Funding Stage ### Seed Stage ($0-$2M ARR) | Metric | Red | Yellow | Green | Elite | |--------|-----|--------|-------|-------| | Magic Number | <0.3 | 0.3-0.5 | >0.5 | >0.8 | | LTV:CAC | <1.5:1 | 1.5-2.5:1 | >2.5:1 | >4:1 | | CAC Payback | >30 mo | 24-30 mo | <24 mo | <15 mo | | Burn Multiple | >5x | 3-5x | <3x | <2x | | Rule of 40 | <0% | 0-20% | >20% | >40% | | NDR | <90% | 90-100% | >100% | >110% | **Context:** At seed stage, efficiency metrics are naturally less stable due to small sample sizes. Focus on directional improvement rather than absolute numbers. Burn multiple is the most critical metric -- investors want to see capital-efficient growth. ### Series A ($2M-$10M ARR) | Metric | Red | Yellow | Green | Elite | |--------|-----|--------|-------|-------| | Magic Number | <0.4 | 0.4-0.6 | >0.6 | >0.9 | | LTV:CAC | <2:1 | 2-3:1 | >3:1 | >5:1 | | CAC Payback | >24 mo | 18-24 mo | <18 mo | <12 mo | | Burn Multiple | >4x | 2.5-4x | <2.5x | <1.5x | | Rule of 40 | <10% | 10-30% | >30% | >50% | | NDR | <95% | 95-105% | >105% | >115% | **Context:** Series A is where unit economics must prove out. LTV:CAC >3:1 validates product-market fit in the revenue model. Investors will scrutinize CAC payback to understand capital requirements. ### Series B ($10M-$50M ARR) | Metric | Red | Yellow | Green | Elite | |--------|-----|--------|-------|-------| | Magic Number | <0.5 | 0.5-0.75 | >0.75 | >1.0 | | LTV:CAC | <2.5:1 | 2.5-3.5:1 | >3.5:1 | >5:1 | | CAC Payback | >22 mo | 15-22 mo | <15 mo | <10 mo | | Burn Multiple | >3x | 2-3x | <2x | <1.5x | | Rule of 40 | <20% | 20-35% | >35% | >50% | | NDR | <100% | 100-110% | >110% | >120% | **Context:** At Series B, the GTM machine should be scaling predictably. Magic Number >0.75 demonstrates that adding GTM spend produces proportional returns. NDR >110% proves land-and-expand motion works. ### Series C+ ($50M-$200M ARR) | Metric | Red | Yellow | Green | Elite | |--------|-----|--------|-------|-------| | Magic Number | <0.5 | 0.5-0.75 | >0.75 | >1.0 | | LTV:CAC | <3:1 | 3-4:1 | >4:1 | >6:1 | | CAC Payback | >20 mo | 14-20 mo | <14 mo | <10 mo | | Burn Multiple | >2.5x | 1.5-2.5x | <1.5x | <1x | | Rule of 40 | <25% | 25-40% | >40% | >60% | | NDR | <105% | 105-115% | >115% | >130% | **Context:** Growth efficiency and path to profitability become paramount. The Rule of 40 is the primary board-level metric. Companies approaching IPO should target Rule of 40 >40% consistently. ### Growth / Pre-IPO ($200M+ ARR) | Metric | Red | Yellow | Green | Elite | |--------|-----|--------|-------|-------| | Magic Number | <0.6 | 0.6-0.8 | >0.8 | >1.0 | | LTV:CAC | <3:1 | 3-5:1 | >5:1 | >7:1 | | CAC Payback | >18 mo | 12-18 mo | <12 mo | <8 mo | | Burn Multiple | >2x | 1-2x | <1x | <0.5x | | Rule of 40 | <30% | 30-45% | >45% | >65% | | NDR | <110% | 110-120% | >120% | >140% | **Context:** Pre-IPO and public companies are measured on absolute efficiency. FCF margin matters as much as growth rate. Best-in-class companies demonstrate both growth and profitability. --- ## Industry Vertical Benchmarks ### Horizontal SaaS (CRM, HR, Finance, Marketing) | Metric | Median | Top Quartile | |--------|--------|-------------| | Magic Number | 0.65 | 0.90+ | | LTV:CAC | 3.2:1 | 5.5:1+ | | CAC Payback | 17 months | 11 months | | Gross Margin | 72% | 80%+ | | NDR | 108% | 120%+ | | Win Rate | 22% | 32%+ | ### Vertical SaaS (Healthcare, FinTech, PropTech) | Metric | Median | Top Quartile | |--------|--------|-------------| | Magic Number | 0.55 | 0.80+ | | LTV:CAC | 3.8:1 | 6.0:1+ | | CAC Payback | 15 months | 10 months | | Gross Margin | 68% | 76%+ | | NDR | 112% | 125%+ | | Win Rate | 25% | 38%+ | **Note:** Vertical SaaS often has higher NDR (deeper embedding) and higher win rates (less competition) but lower gross margins (more services). ### Infrastructure / DevTools | Metric | Median | Top Quartile | |--------|--------|-------------| | Magic Number | 0.70 | 1.0+ | | LTV:CAC | 4.0:1 | 7.0:1+ | | CAC Payback | 14 months | 9 months | | Gross Margin | 75% | 85%+ | | NDR | 118% | 140%+ | | Win Rate | 18% | 28%+ | **Note:** Usage-based pricing in infrastructure drives exceptional NDR but more volatile revenue patterns. ### Security / Compliance | Metric | Median | Top Quartile | |--------|--------|-------------| | Magic Number | 0.60 | 0.85+ | | LTV:CAC | 3.5:1 | 5.8:1+ | | CAC Payback | 16 months | 11 months | | Gross Margin | 74% | 82%+ | | NDR | 115% | 130%+ | | Win Rate | 20% | 30%+ | --- ## Efficiency Improvement Strategies ### Improving Magic Number **Current: <0.5 (Red) -- Target: >0.75 (Green)** 1. **Channel ROI analysis:** Audit spend by channel (paid, outbound, events, content). Cut bottom 20% performing channels and reallocate. 2. **Sales productivity:** Measure revenue per rep. Identify bottom-quartile performers for coaching or role change. Top performers should be studied and their practices systematized. 3. **Funnel efficiency:** Improve MQL-to-SQL conversion through better lead scoring. Fewer, higher-quality leads reduce wasted sales capacity. 4. **Ramp time reduction:** Accelerate new rep ramp from average 6 months to 4 months through structured onboarding, shadowing, and certification. 5. **Territory optimization:** Ensure territories are balanced by opportunity (not just geography). Over-served territories waste capacity. ### Improving LTV:CAC **Current: <3:1 (Yellow) -- Target: >5:1 (Green)** **Increase LTV:** - Reduce churn through proactive health scoring and intervention - Build expansion playbooks for cross-sell and upsell - Increase pricing through value-based packaging - Improve product stickiness with integrations and workflows **Decrease CAC:** - Invest in organic channels (content, SEO, community) - Implement product-led growth (PLG) motion - Optimize paid spend through better targeting and attribution - Leverage customer referrals and case studies ### Improving CAC Payback **Current: >18 months (Yellow) -- Target: <12 months (Green)** 1. **Increase ARPA:** Package features to drive higher initial contract values. Annual prepay discounts accelerate cash collection. 2. **Improve gross margin:** Reduce COGS through automation, self-serve onboarding, and tech-touch customer success. 3. **Reduce CAC:** Same strategies as LTV:CAC improvement on the CAC side. 4. **Contract structure:** Annual or multi-year contracts with upfront payment reduce effective payback period. ### Improving Burn Multiple **Current: >2x (Yellow) -- Target: <1.5x (Green)** 1. **Revenue efficiency:** Focus on the highest ROI growth activities. Not all ARR is equal -- expansion ARR is typically much cheaper than new logo ARR. 2. **Operational efficiency:** Automate repeatable processes (billing, provisioning, basic support). Reduce headcount growth rate relative to revenue growth rate. 3. **Spending discipline:** Implement zero-based budgeting for non-essential spend. Every dollar of burn should connect to revenue generation. 4. **Revenue acceleration:** Sometimes the best way to improve burn multiple is not cutting costs but accelerating revenue. If you can accelerate revenue growth by 20% with 5% more spend, the burn multiple improves. ### Improving NDR **Current: 100-110% (Yellow) -- Target: >120% (Green)** 1. **Expansion playbooks:** Define trigger events for upsell (usage thresholds, team growth, feature requests). Arm CSMs with expansion talk tracks. 2. **Usage-based pricing:** Align pricing with customer value creation. As customers use more, they pay more -- naturally drives expansion. 3. **Product-led expansion:** Build in-product prompts for upgrades. Feature gating that shows value of next tier. 4. **Reduce contraction:** Identify reasons for downgrades. Often related to poor adoption of features customers are paying for. 5. **Reduce churn:** Implement early warning system (health scores). Intervene before renewal, not at renewal. 6. **Multi-product strategy:** Cross-sell additional products to existing customers. Second product adoption reduces churn by 30-50%. --- ## Metric Relationships and Trade-offs ### Growth vs. Efficiency The fundamental tension in SaaS is between growth rate and capital efficiency: ``` High Growth + High Burn = Blitzscaling (risky but fast) High Growth + Low Burn = Efficient Growth (ideal) Low Growth + Low Burn = Cash Cow (sustainable but limited) Low Growth + High Burn = Trouble (restructure immediately) ``` **Rule of 40** captures this balance: growth rate + margin should exceed 40%. ### CAC Payback vs. Growth Rate Shorter CAC payback enables faster reinvestment in growth. A company with 12-month payback can reinvest recovered CAC into new customer acquisition sooner than one with 24-month payback, creating a compounding advantage. ### NDR vs. New Logo Acquisition High NDR reduces dependence on new logo acquisition for growth: - NDR of 120% means 20% growth from existing base before any new customers - NDR of 100% means all growth must come from new customers (expensive) - NDR of 80% means the company is shrinking and must acquire even more new customers just to replace lost revenue **Strategic implication:** Invest in NDR improvement before scaling new logo acquisition. Every dollar spent improving NDR has higher ROI than acquiring new customers. --- ## Benchmark Data Sources The benchmarks in this guide are compiled from: 1. **Bessemer Cloud Index** -- Public cloud company financial data 2. **KeyBanc SaaS Survey** -- Annual survey of private SaaS companies 3. **OpenView SaaS Benchmarks** -- Product-led growth focused benchmarks 4. **Iconiq Growth Analytics** -- Private company growth and efficiency data 5. **SaaStr Annual Surveys** -- Community-sourced SaaS metrics 6. **Battery Ventures Software Report** -- Enterprise software metrics **Note:** Benchmarks shift over time. In capital-constrained environments (higher interest rates), efficiency metrics (burn multiple, Rule of 40) receive more weight. In growth-oriented environments (lower interest rates), growth rate and market share gain importance. --- ## Quarterly Board Reporting Template When presenting GTM efficiency to the board, organize metrics as follows: 1. **Growth:** ARR, net new ARR, growth rate, NDR 2. **Efficiency:** Magic Number, LTV:CAC, CAC Payback, Burn Multiple 3. **Balance:** Rule of 40 score and composition 4. **Pipeline:** Coverage ratio, velocity, forecast accuracy 5. **Trends:** Quarter-over-quarter change for each metric with directional indicators 6. **Benchmarks:** How the company compares to stage-appropriate benchmarks 7. **Actions:** Top 3 initiatives to improve weakest metrics FILE:revenue-operations/references/pipeline-management-framework.md # Pipeline Management Framework Best practices for pipeline management including stage definitions, conversion benchmarks, velocity optimization, and inspection cadence. --- ## Pipeline Stage Definitions A well-defined pipeline requires clear, observable exit criteria at each stage. Subjective stages lead to inaccurate forecasting and unreliable conversion data. ### Recommended Stage Model (B2B SaaS) | Stage | Name | Exit Criteria | Probability | Typical Duration | |-------|------|--------------|-------------|-----------------| | S0 | Lead | Contact identified, initial interest signal | 5% | 0-7 days | | S1 | Discovery | Pain identified, budget confirmed, stakeholder engaged | 10% | 7-14 days | | S2 | Qualification | MEDDPICC criteria met, mutual action plan created | 20% | 14-21 days | | S3 | Proposal | Solution presented, pricing delivered, champion confirmed | 40% | 7-14 days | | S4 | Negotiation | Commercial terms discussed, legal engaged, verbal commitment | 60% | 7-21 days | | S5 | Commit | Contract redlined, signature timeline confirmed | 80% | 3-7 days | | S6 | Closed Won | Signed contract received | 100% | -- | | SL | Closed Lost | Deal disposition recorded with loss reason | 0% | -- | ### Stage Exit Criteria Best Practices **Discovery (S1) Exit Criteria:** - Pain point articulated by prospect (not assumed by rep) - Budget range discussed (even if informal) - Decision-making process understood - Next meeting scheduled with clear agenda **Qualification (S2) Exit Criteria:** - MEDDPICC or BANT qualification framework completed - Economic buyer identified (not just champion) - Compelling event or timeline identified - Mutual action plan (MAP) shared and agreed upon - Technical requirements understood **Proposal (S3) Exit Criteria:** - Solution demo completed and well-received - Pricing proposal delivered - Champion validated proposal internally - Competitive landscape understood - No unresolved technical blockers **Negotiation (S4) Exit Criteria:** - Commercial terms discussed (not just pricing, but payment terms, SLA, etc.) - Legal review initiated - Security/procurement review started - Verbal agreement on core terms - Close date confirmed within 30 days **Commit (S5) Exit Criteria:** - Final contract sent for signature - All legal redlines resolved - Procurement approval obtained - Signature expected within 7 business days --- ## Conversion Benchmarks by Segment ### SMB (ACV <$25K) | Transition | Benchmark | Top Quartile | |-----------|-----------|--------------| | Lead to Discovery | 20-30% | 35%+ | | Discovery to Qualification | 40-50% | 55%+ | | Qualification to Proposal | 50-60% | 65%+ | | Proposal to Negotiation | 55-65% | 70%+ | | Negotiation to Close | 65-75% | 80%+ | | Overall Win Rate | 20-30% | 35%+ | | Avg Cycle Length | 14-30 days | <14 days | ### Mid-Market (ACV $25K-$100K) | Transition | Benchmark | Top Quartile | |-----------|-----------|--------------| | Lead to Discovery | 15-25% | 30%+ | | Discovery to Qualification | 35-45% | 50%+ | | Qualification to Proposal | 45-55% | 60%+ | | Proposal to Negotiation | 50-60% | 65%+ | | Negotiation to Close | 60-70% | 75%+ | | Overall Win Rate | 15-25% | 30%+ | | Avg Cycle Length | 30-60 days | <30 days | ### Enterprise (ACV >$100K) | Transition | Benchmark | Top Quartile | |-----------|-----------|--------------| | Lead to Discovery | 10-20% | 25%+ | | Discovery to Qualification | 30-40% | 45%+ | | Qualification to Proposal | 40-50% | 55%+ | | Proposal to Negotiation | 45-55% | 60%+ | | Negotiation to Close | 55-65% | 70%+ | | Overall Win Rate | 10-20% | 25%+ | | Avg Cycle Length | 60-120 days | <60 days | --- ## Sales Velocity Optimization Sales velocity = (# Opportunities x Avg Deal Size x Win Rate) / Avg Cycle Days Each component is an optimization lever: ### Lever 1: Increase Opportunity Volume **Strategies:** - Invest in inbound marketing (content, SEO, paid) - Scale outbound SDR capacity - Develop partner/channel sourcing - Launch product-led growth (PLG) motion - Implement customer referral programs **Measurement:** Pipeline created ($) per week/month, by source ### Lever 2: Increase Average Deal Size **Strategies:** - Multi-product bundling and packaging - Usage-based pricing with growth triggers - Land-and-expand with defined expansion playbooks - Move upmarket with enterprise features - Value-based pricing tied to customer outcomes **Measurement:** ACV trend by quarter, by segment ### Lever 3: Increase Win Rate **Strategies:** - Implement MEDDPICC qualification rigor - Build competitive battle cards and train on them - Create multi-threaded relationships (not single-threaded) - Develop ROI/business case tools - Invest in sales engineering and demo quality - Win/loss analysis with structured debriefs **Measurement:** Win rate by stage entry, by competitor, by rep ### Lever 4: Decrease Sales Cycle Length **Strategies:** - Pre-qualify harder at S1/S2 to remove slow deals - Mutual action plans with milestone dates - Champion enablement (arm champions with internal selling materials) - Parallel processing (legal/security review concurrent with evaluation) - Standardized contracts and pre-approved terms - Executive sponsor engagement for stuck deals **Measurement:** Days in each stage, cycle length trend, stage-specific bottlenecks --- ## Pipeline Inspection Cadence ### Daily (Rep Level) **Focus:** Deal-level activity and next steps **Questions:** - What is the next step for each deal in S3+? - Are any deals missing next steps or scheduled meetings? - Which deals have not been updated in >3 days? ### Weekly (Manager/Team Level) **Focus:** Pipeline health and forecast accuracy **Review Format (45-60 minutes):** 1. **Coverage Check (10 min)** - Current pipeline vs. quota -- is coverage >3x? - Pipeline created this week vs. target - Net pipeline change (created minus closed minus lost) 2. **Deal Inspection (25 min)** - Walk top 10 deals by value in S3+ - MEDDPICC validation for each commit deal - Identify deals at risk (aging, single-threaded, no next step) 3. **Forecast Call (10 min)** - Commit, best case, and pipeline forecast - Changes from last week's forecast (what moved and why) - Gaps to plan and remediation 4. **Action Items (5 min)** - Deals needing executive engagement - Pipeline generation actions for next week - Coaching priorities ### Monthly (Leadership Level) **Focus:** Pipeline trends, velocity, and efficiency **Review Areas:** - Month-over-month pipeline growth trend - Conversion rate trends by stage - Sales velocity trend (improving or declining?) - Forecast accuracy (MAPE) for the month - Rep performance distribution (quartile analysis) - Pipeline source mix health ### Quarterly (Executive/Board Level) **Focus:** GTM efficiency and strategic pipeline **Review Areas:** - Pipeline coverage for next 2-3 quarters - LTV:CAC and Magic Number trends - Sales efficiency ratio trends - Market segment performance comparison - New market/product pipeline contribution - Competitive win/loss trends --- ## Pipeline Hygiene ### Deal Hygiene Standards 1. **Close date accuracy:** Close dates must be based on buyer commitment, not rep hope. Any deal pushed more than twice should be flagged for re-qualification. 2. **Stage accuracy:** Deals must meet exit criteria to be in a stage. No deal should be in Proposal (S3) without a pricing deliverable sent. 3. **Amount accuracy:** Deal amounts must reflect the current proposal, not aspirational upsell. Variance between deal value and proposal should be <10%. 4. **Contact coverage:** Deals >$50K should have 3+ contacts associated. Enterprise deals should have economic buyer, champion, and technical evaluator. 5. **Activity recency:** No deal should go 7+ days without logged activity. Deals without recent activity signal stalling. ### Pipeline Cleanup Triggers Run cleanup when: - Pipeline-to-quota ratio drops below 2.5x - Forecast accuracy (MAPE) exceeds 20% - More than 15% of pipeline is >90 days old - Average deal age exceeds 1.5x normal cycle time ### Cleanup Process 1. Flag all deals with close date in the past 2. Flag all deals with no activity in 14+ days 3. Flag all deals pushed 3+ times 4. Rep self-assessment: keep, push, or close for each flagged deal 5. Manager review and disposition 6. Update CRM and recalculate metrics --- ## Pipeline Risk Indicators ### Concentration Risk **Definition:** Over-reliance on a small number of large deals. **Thresholds:** - Single deal >40% of pipeline = HIGH risk - Single deal >25% of pipeline = MEDIUM risk - Top 3 deals >70% of pipeline = HIGH risk **Mitigation:** Diversify pipeline across segments, deal sizes, and sources. Increase deal count even if average deal size decreases. ### Stage Imbalance Risk **Definition:** Pipeline is concentrated in early or late stages with gaps in between. **Healthy Distribution:** - Discovery/Qualification: 50-60% of pipeline value - Proposal: 20-25% of pipeline value - Negotiation/Commit: 15-20% of pipeline value **Warning Signs:** - >70% in early stages = insufficient progression - >50% in late stages = insufficient pipeline generation - Empty stages = broken funnel mechanics ### Temporal Risk **Definition:** Pipeline is concentrated in a single quarter or lacks coverage for future quarters. **Standard:** Maintain 3x coverage for current quarter and 1.5x for next quarter. ### Source Risk **Definition:** Pipeline is overly dependent on a single source (e.g., 80% outbound, 0% inbound). **Healthy Mix (varies by stage):** - Inbound/Marketing: 30-40% - Outbound/SDR: 30-40% - Partner/Channel: 10-20% - Expansion/Customer: 10-20% FILE:revenue-operations/references/revops-metrics-guide.md # RevOps Metrics Guide Complete reference for Revenue Operations metrics hierarchy, definitions, formulas, interpretation guidelines, and common mistakes. --- ## Metrics Hierarchy Revenue Operations metrics are organized in a hierarchy from leading indicators (pipeline activity) through lagging indicators (efficiency outcomes): ``` Level 1: Activity Metrics (Leading) ├── Pipeline created ($, #) ├── Meetings booked ├── Proposals sent └── Demo completion rate Level 2: Pipeline Metrics (Mid-funnel) ├── Pipeline coverage ratio ├── Stage conversion rates ├── Sales velocity ├── Deal aging └── Pipeline hygiene score Level 3: Revenue Metrics (Outcomes) ├── Bookings (new, expansion, renewal) ├── Revenue (ARR, MRR, TCV) ├── Win rate └── Average deal size Level 4: Efficiency Metrics (Unit Economics) ├── Magic Number ├── LTV:CAC Ratio ├── CAC Payback Period ├── Burn Multiple ├── Rule of 40 └── Net Dollar Retention Level 5: Strategic Metrics (Board-Level) ├── Revenue per employee ├── Gross margin trend ├── NRR cohort analysis └── Customer health score ``` --- ## Core Metric Definitions ### Pipeline Coverage Ratio **Formula:** Total Weighted Pipeline / Quota Target **What it measures:** Whether there is sufficient pipeline to meet revenue targets. **Interpretation:** - 4x+: Strong coverage, selective deal pursuit possible - 3-4x: Healthy coverage, standard operations - 2-3x: At risk, accelerate pipeline generation - <2x: Critical, immediate pipeline intervention needed **Common Mistakes:** - Including closed-won deals in the pipeline total - Not weighting by stage probability - Using annual quota against quarterly pipeline - Ignoring deal quality in favor of quantity **Best Practice:** Measure coverage ratio weekly. Track by quarter to identify seasonal gaps early. --- ### Stage Conversion Rates **Formula:** # Deals advancing to Stage N+1 / # Deals entering Stage N **What it measures:** Efficiency of progression through each pipeline stage. **Typical SaaS Conversion Benchmarks:** | Stage Transition | Median Rate | Top Quartile | |-----------------|-------------|--------------| | Lead to Qualification | 15-25% | 30%+ | | Qualification to Proposal | 40-50% | 60%+ | | Proposal to Negotiation | 50-60% | 70%+ | | Negotiation to Close | 60-70% | 80%+ | | Overall Win Rate | 15-25% | 30%+ | **Common Mistakes:** - Not standardizing stage exit criteria (subjective stages) - Comparing conversion rates across different sales motions (PLG vs enterprise) - Ignoring stage skipping (deals that jump stages inflate later conversion rates) - Not segmenting by deal size or segment --- ### Sales Velocity **Formula:** (# Opportunities x Avg Deal Size x Win Rate) / Avg Sales Cycle Days **What it measures:** The rate at which the pipeline generates revenue, measured as revenue per day. **Components:** 1. **# Opportunities** -- Volume of qualified deals in pipeline 2. **Avg Deal Size** -- Average contract value of won deals 3. **Win Rate** -- Percentage of deals that close 4. **Avg Sales Cycle** -- Days from opportunity creation to close **Optimization levers:** - Increase opportunity volume (marketing/SDR investment) - Increase deal size (pricing, packaging, upsell) - Increase win rate (sales enablement, competitive positioning) - Decrease cycle length (champion building, MEDDPICC adherence) **Common Mistakes:** - Using all pipeline deals instead of qualified opportunities - Not normalizing for segment (SMB velocity vs Enterprise velocity) - Conflating calendar time with active selling time - Ignoring velocity trend in favor of absolute number --- ### MAPE (Mean Absolute Percentage Error) **Formula:** mean(|Actual - Forecast| / |Actual|) x 100 **What it measures:** Average forecast error magnitude as a percentage. **Interpretation:** | MAPE | Rating | Action | |------|--------|--------| | <10% | Excellent | Maintain current methodology | | 10-15% | Good | Minor calibration adjustments | | 15-25% | Fair | Methodology review needed | | >25% | Poor | Fundamental process overhaul | **Common Mistakes:** - Using forecast vs. target instead of forecast vs. actual - Not distinguishing between bias (systematic) and variance (random) - Measuring only at the aggregate level (masks individual rep errors) - Comparing MAPE across different time horizons (monthly vs quarterly) --- ### Forecast Bias **Formula:** mean(Forecast - Actual) / mean(Actual) x 100 **What it measures:** Systematic tendency to over-forecast or under-forecast. **Types:** - **Positive bias (over-forecasting):** Forecast consistently exceeds actual. Often indicates optimistic deal assessment, insufficient qualification, or sandbagging reversal. - **Negative bias (under-forecasting):** Actual consistently exceeds forecast. Often indicates conservative call culture, late-stage deals arriving unexpectedly, or poor pipeline visibility. **Healthy Range:** Bias within +/- 5% of actual is considered well-calibrated. --- ### Magic Number **Formula:** Net New ARR / Prior Period S&M Spend **What it measures:** Efficiency of sales & marketing spend in generating new revenue. **Interpretation:** - >1.0: Extremely efficient, consider increasing GTM investment - 0.75-1.0: Healthy efficiency, optimize and scale - 0.50-0.75: Acceptable, focus on channel/spend optimization - <0.50: Inefficient, audit spend allocation and productivity **Common Mistakes:** - Using total revenue instead of net new ARR - Including expansion ARR (Magic Number measures new logo efficiency) - Using current period spend instead of prior period (lag effect) - Not separating sales spend from marketing spend for diagnostics --- ### LTV:CAC Ratio **Formula:** Customer Lifetime Value / Customer Acquisition Cost **Where:** - LTV = (ARPA x Gross Margin) / Churn Rate - ARPA = Average Revenue Per Account (annualized) - CAC = Total S&M Spend / New Customers Acquired **Target:** >3:1 is healthy; >5:1 may indicate under-investment in growth **Common Mistakes:** - Using revenue instead of gross-margin-weighted revenue in LTV - Not including all acquisition costs (SDR, marketing, sales engineering) - Using blended churn instead of cohort-specific churn - Comparing across segments without normalizing (enterprise LTV:CAC is naturally higher) --- ### CAC Payback Period **Formula:** CAC / (ARPA_monthly x Gross Margin) **What it measures:** Months to recover the cost of acquiring a customer. **Interpretation:** - <12 months: Excellent capital efficiency - 12-18 months: Healthy, especially for mid-market/enterprise - 18-24 months: Acceptable for enterprise, concerning for SMB - >24 months: Capital-intensive, needs optimization **Common Mistakes:** - Using revenue instead of gross-margin contribution - Ignoring expansion revenue in payback calculation (conservative approach) - Comparing SMB payback to enterprise payback without context --- ### Burn Multiple **Formula:** Net Burn / Net New ARR **What it measures:** How much cash is consumed for each dollar of new ARR. **Interpretation (David Sacks framework):** - <1.0x: Amazing -- hyper-efficient growth - 1.0-1.5x: Great -- strong capital efficiency - 1.5-2.0x: Good -- healthy burn rate - 2.0-3.0x: Suspect -- needs attention - >3.0x: Bad -- unsustainable without course correction **Common Mistakes:** - Using gross burn instead of net burn - Not annualizing ARR when using quarterly burn - Ignoring the denominator quality (all new ARR is not equal) --- ### Rule of 40 **Formula:** Revenue Growth Rate (%) + Free Cash Flow Margin (%) **What it measures:** Balance between growth and profitability. **Interpretation:** - >60%: Elite SaaS company - 40-60%: Strong performance - 20-40%: Acceptable, optimize one dimension - <20%: Needs significant improvement **Common Mistakes:** - Using EBITDA margin instead of FCF margin - Comparing early-stage (growth-heavy) with late-stage (margin-heavy) - Not considering the composition (80% growth + -40% margin vs 30% + 10%) --- ### Net Dollar Retention (NDR) **Formula:** (Beginning ARR + Expansion - Contraction - Churn) / Beginning ARR x 100 **What it measures:** Revenue retention and expansion from existing customers. **Interpretation:** - >130%: World-class expansion (Snowflake, Datadog) - 120-130%: Excellent land-and-expand - 110-120%: Strong retention with moderate expansion - 100-110%: Stable base, limited expansion - <100%: Net revenue contraction -- critical concern **Common Mistakes:** - Including new logos in the calculation - Not normalizing for cohort age (newer cohorts expand differently) - Confusing gross retention with net retention - Using logo retention as a proxy for dollar retention --- ## Metric Interdependencies Understanding how metrics relate prevents conflicting optimizations: 1. **Magic Number and LTV:CAC** -- Both use S&M spend but measure different horizons. Magic Number is period-specific; LTV:CAC is lifetime. 2. **Burn Multiple and Rule of 40** -- Both measure efficiency but from different angles. Burn Multiple is cash-focused; Rule of 40 balances growth with profitability. 3. **Pipeline Coverage and Sales Velocity** -- High coverage with low velocity means pipeline is stagnating. Both must be healthy. 4. **NDR and LTV** -- NDR directly impacts LTV. Improving NDR is the highest-leverage way to improve LTV:CAC. 5. **Win Rate and Deal Size** -- Often inversely correlated. Moving upmarket increases deal size but may reduce win rate. --- ## Measurement Cadence | Metric | Cadence | Owner | |--------|---------|-------| | Pipeline Coverage | Weekly | Sales Leadership | | Stage Conversion | Bi-weekly | Sales Ops | | Sales Velocity | Monthly | RevOps | | Forecast Accuracy (MAPE) | Monthly/Quarterly | RevOps | | Magic Number | Quarterly | CRO/CFO | | LTV:CAC | Quarterly | Finance/RevOps | | CAC Payback | Quarterly | Finance | | Burn Multiple | Quarterly | CFO | | Rule of 40 | Quarterly/Annual | CEO/Board | | NDR | Quarterly | CS/RevOps | FILE:revenue-operations/scripts/forecast_accuracy_tracker.py #!/usr/bin/env python3 """Forecast Accuracy Tracker - Measures forecast accuracy and bias for SaaS revenue teams. Calculates MAPE (Mean Absolute Percentage Error), detects systematic forecasting bias, analyzes accuracy trends, and provides category-level breakdowns. Usage: python forecast_accuracy_tracker.py forecast_data.json --format text python forecast_accuracy_tracker.py forecast_data.json --format json """ import argparse import json import sys from typing import Any def safe_divide(numerator: float, denominator: float, default: float = 0.0) -> float: """Safely divide two numbers, returning default if denominator is zero.""" if denominator == 0: return default return numerator / denominator def calculate_mape(periods: list[dict]) -> float: """Calculate Mean Absolute Percentage Error. Formula: mean(|actual - forecast| / |actual|) x 100 Args: periods: List of dicts with 'forecast' and 'actual' keys. Returns: MAPE as a percentage. """ if not periods: return 0.0 errors = [] for p in periods: actual = p["actual"] forecast = p["forecast"] if actual != 0: errors.append(abs(actual - forecast) / abs(actual)) if not errors: return 0.0 return (sum(errors) / len(errors)) * 100 def calculate_weighted_mape(periods: list[dict]) -> float: """Calculate value-weighted MAPE. Weights each period's error by its actual value, giving more importance to larger periods. Args: periods: List of dicts with 'forecast' and 'actual' keys. Returns: Weighted MAPE as a percentage. """ if not periods: return 0.0 total_actual = sum(abs(p["actual"]) for p in periods) if total_actual == 0: return 0.0 weighted_errors = 0.0 for p in periods: actual = p["actual"] forecast = p["forecast"] if actual != 0: weight = abs(actual) / total_actual weighted_errors += weight * (abs(actual - forecast) / abs(actual)) return weighted_errors * 100 def get_accuracy_rating(mape: float) -> dict[str, str]: """Return accuracy rating based on MAPE threshold. Ratings: Excellent: <10% Good: 10-15% Fair: 15-25% Poor: >25% """ if mape < 10: return {"rating": "Excellent", "description": "Highly predictable, data-driven process"} elif mape < 15: return {"rating": "Good", "description": "Reliable forecasting with minor variance"} elif mape < 25: return {"rating": "Fair", "description": "Needs process improvement"} else: return {"rating": "Poor", "description": "Significant forecasting methodology gaps"} def analyze_bias(periods: list[dict]) -> dict[str, Any]: """Analyze systematic forecasting bias. Positive bias = over-forecasting (forecast > actual, i.e., actual fell short) Negative bias = under-forecasting (forecast < actual, i.e., actual exceeded) Args: periods: List of dicts with 'forecast' and 'actual' keys. Returns: Bias analysis with direction, magnitude, and ratio. """ if not periods: return { "direction": "None", "bias_pct": 0.0, "over_forecast_count": 0, "under_forecast_count": 0, "exact_count": 0, "bias_ratio": 0.0, } over_count = 0 under_count = 0 exact_count = 0 total_bias = 0.0 for p in periods: diff = p["forecast"] - p["actual"] total_bias += diff if diff > 0: over_count += 1 elif diff < 0: under_count += 1 else: exact_count += 1 avg_bias = total_bias / len(periods) total_actual = sum(p["actual"] for p in periods) bias_pct = safe_divide(total_bias, total_actual) * 100 if over_count > under_count: direction = "Over-forecasting" elif under_count > over_count: direction = "Under-forecasting" else: direction = "Balanced" bias_ratio = safe_divide(over_count, over_count + under_count) return { "direction": direction, "avg_bias_amount": round(avg_bias, 2), "bias_pct": round(bias_pct, 1), "over_forecast_count": over_count, "under_forecast_count": under_count, "exact_count": exact_count, "bias_ratio": round(bias_ratio, 2), } def analyze_trend(periods: list[dict]) -> dict[str, Any]: """Analyze period-over-period accuracy trend. Determines if forecast accuracy is improving, stable, or declining by comparing error rates across consecutive periods. Args: periods: List of dicts with 'period', 'forecast', and 'actual' keys. Returns: Trend analysis with direction and period details. """ if len(periods) < 2: return { "trend": "Insufficient data", "period_errors": [], "improving_periods": 0, "declining_periods": 0, } period_errors = [] for p in periods: actual = p["actual"] forecast = p["forecast"] if actual != 0: error_pct = abs(actual - forecast) / abs(actual) * 100 else: error_pct = 0.0 period_errors.append({ "period": p.get("period", "Unknown"), "error_pct": round(error_pct, 1), "forecast": forecast, "actual": actual, }) improving = 0 declining = 0 for i in range(1, len(period_errors)): if period_errors[i]["error_pct"] < period_errors[i - 1]["error_pct"]: improving += 1 elif period_errors[i]["error_pct"] > period_errors[i - 1]["error_pct"]: declining += 1 if improving > declining: trend = "Improving" elif declining > improving: trend = "Declining" else: trend = "Stable" # Calculate recent vs historical MAPE midpoint = len(periods) // 2 if midpoint > 0: early_mape = calculate_mape(periods[:midpoint]) recent_mape = calculate_mape(periods[midpoint:]) mape_change = recent_mape - early_mape else: early_mape = 0.0 recent_mape = 0.0 mape_change = 0.0 return { "trend": trend, "period_errors": period_errors, "improving_periods": improving, "declining_periods": declining, "early_mape": round(early_mape, 1), "recent_mape": round(recent_mape, 1), "mape_change": round(mape_change, 1), } def analyze_categories(category_breakdowns: dict) -> dict[str, Any]: """Analyze accuracy by category (rep, product, segment, etc.). Args: category_breakdowns: Dict of category_name -> list of {category, forecast, actual} dicts. Returns: Category-level MAPE and accuracy analysis. """ results = {} for category_name, entries in category_breakdowns.items(): category_results = [] for entry in entries: actual = entry["actual"] forecast = entry["forecast"] if actual != 0: error_pct = abs(actual - forecast) / abs(actual) * 100 else: error_pct = 0.0 diff = forecast - actual if diff > 0: bias = "Over" elif diff < 0: bias = "Under" else: bias = "Exact" rating = get_accuracy_rating(error_pct) category_results.append({ "category": entry["category"], "forecast": forecast, "actual": actual, "error_pct": round(error_pct, 1), "bias": bias, "variance": round(diff, 2), "rating": rating["rating"], }) # Sort by error percentage (worst first) category_results.sort(key=lambda x: x["error_pct"], reverse=True) overall_mape = calculate_mape(entries) results[category_name] = { "entries": category_results, "overall_mape": round(overall_mape, 1), "overall_rating": get_accuracy_rating(overall_mape)["rating"], } return results def generate_recommendations( mape: float, bias: dict, trend: dict, categories: dict ) -> list[str]: """Generate actionable recommendations based on analysis results. Args: mape: Overall MAPE percentage. bias: Bias analysis results. trend: Trend analysis results. categories: Category analysis results. Returns: List of recommendation strings. """ recommendations = [] # MAPE-based recommendations if mape > 25: recommendations.append( "CRITICAL: MAPE exceeds 25%. Implement structured forecasting methodology " "(e.g., weighted pipeline with stage-based probabilities)." ) elif mape > 15: recommendations.append( "Forecast accuracy needs improvement. Consider implementing deal-level " "forecasting with commit/upside/pipeline categories." ) # Bias-based recommendations if bias["direction"] == "Over-forecasting" and abs(bias["bias_pct"]) > 10: recommendations.append( f"Systematic over-forecasting detected ({bias['bias_pct']}% bias). " "Review deal qualification criteria and apply more conservative " "stage probabilities." ) elif bias["direction"] == "Under-forecasting" and abs(bias["bias_pct"]) > 10: recommendations.append( f"Systematic under-forecasting detected ({bias['bias_pct']}% bias). " "Review upside deals more carefully and improve pipeline visibility." ) # Trend-based recommendations if trend["trend"] == "Declining": recommendations.append( "Forecast accuracy is declining over time. Schedule a forecasting " "methodology review and retrain the team on forecasting best practices." ) elif trend["trend"] == "Improving": recommendations.append( "Forecast accuracy is improving. Continue current methodology and " "document best practices for consistency." ) # Category-based recommendations for cat_name, cat_data in categories.items(): worst_entries = [ e for e in cat_data["entries"] if e["error_pct"] > 25 ] if worst_entries: names = ", ".join(e["category"] for e in worst_entries[:3]) recommendations.append( f"High error rates in {cat_name}: {names}. " f"Provide targeted coaching on forecasting discipline." ) if not recommendations: recommendations.append( "Forecasting performance is strong. Maintain current processes " "and continue monitoring for drift." ) return recommendations def track_forecast_accuracy(data: dict) -> dict[str, Any]: """Run complete forecast accuracy analysis. Args: data: Forecast data with periods and optional category breakdowns. Returns: Complete forecast accuracy analysis results. """ periods = data["forecast_periods"] mape = calculate_mape(periods) weighted_mape = calculate_weighted_mape(periods) rating = get_accuracy_rating(mape) bias = analyze_bias(periods) trend = analyze_trend(periods) categories = {} if "category_breakdowns" in data: categories = analyze_categories(data["category_breakdowns"]) recommendations = generate_recommendations(mape, bias, trend, categories) return { "mape": round(mape, 1), "weighted_mape": round(weighted_mape, 1), "accuracy_rating": rating, "bias": bias, "trend": trend, "category_breakdowns": categories, "recommendations": recommendations, "periods_analyzed": len(periods), } def format_currency(value: float) -> str: """Format a number as currency.""" if abs(value) >= 1_000_000: return f"${value / 1_000_000:,.1f}M" elif abs(value) >= 1_000: return f"${value / 1_000:,.1f}K" return f"${value:,.0f}" def format_text_report(results: dict) -> str: """Format analysis results as a human-readable text report.""" lines = [] lines.append("=" * 70) lines.append("FORECAST ACCURACY REPORT") lines.append("=" * 70) # Overall accuracy lines.append("") lines.append("OVERALL ACCURACY") lines.append("-" * 40) lines.append(f" MAPE: {results['mape']}%") lines.append(f" Weighted MAPE: {results['weighted_mape']}%") lines.append(f" Rating: {results['accuracy_rating']['rating']}") lines.append(f" Assessment: {results['accuracy_rating']['description']}") lines.append(f" Periods Analyzed: {results['periods_analyzed']}") # Bias analysis bias = results["bias"] lines.append("") lines.append("FORECAST BIAS") lines.append("-" * 40) lines.append(f" Direction: {bias['direction']}") lines.append(f" Bias %: {bias['bias_pct']}%") lines.append(f" Avg Bias Amount: {format_currency(bias['avg_bias_amount'])}") lines.append(f" Over-forecast: {bias['over_forecast_count']} periods") lines.append(f" Under-forecast: {bias['under_forecast_count']} periods") lines.append(f" Bias Ratio: {bias['bias_ratio']}") # Trend analysis trend = results["trend"] lines.append("") lines.append("ACCURACY TREND") lines.append("-" * 40) lines.append(f" Trend: {trend['trend']}") lines.append(f" Improving: {trend['improving_periods']} periods") lines.append(f" Declining: {trend['declining_periods']} periods") if trend.get("early_mape") is not None and trend["trend"] != "Insufficient data": lines.append(f" Early MAPE: {trend['early_mape']}%") lines.append(f" Recent MAPE: {trend['recent_mape']}%") lines.append(f" MAPE Change: {trend['mape_change']:+.1f}%") if trend.get("period_errors"): lines.append("") lines.append(" PERIOD DETAIL:") for pe in trend["period_errors"]: lines.append( f" {pe['period']:12s} " f"Forecast: {format_currency(pe['forecast']):>10s} " f"Actual: {format_currency(pe['actual']):>10s} " f"Error: {pe['error_pct']}%" ) # Category breakdowns if results["category_breakdowns"]: lines.append("") lines.append("CATEGORY BREAKDOWN") lines.append("-" * 40) for cat_name, cat_data in results["category_breakdowns"].items(): lines.append( f"\n {cat_name.upper()} (Overall MAPE: {cat_data['overall_mape']}% " f"- {cat_data['overall_rating']})" ) for entry in cat_data["entries"]: lines.append( f" {entry['category']:20s} " f"Error: {entry['error_pct']:5.1f}% " f"Bias: {entry['bias']:5s} " f"Rating: {entry['rating']}" ) # Recommendations lines.append("") lines.append("RECOMMENDATIONS") lines.append("-" * 40) for i, rec in enumerate(results["recommendations"], 1): lines.append(f" {i}. {rec}") lines.append("") lines.append("=" * 70) return "\n".join(lines) def main() -> None: """Main entry point for forecast accuracy tracker CLI.""" parser = argparse.ArgumentParser( description="Track and analyze forecast accuracy for SaaS revenue teams." ) parser.add_argument( "input", help="Path to JSON file containing forecast data", ) parser.add_argument( "--format", choices=["json", "text"], default="text", help="Output format: json or text (default: text)", ) args = parser.parse_args() try: with open(args.input, "r") as f: data = json.load(f) except FileNotFoundError: print(f"Error: File not found: {args.input}", file=sys.stderr) sys.exit(1) except json.JSONDecodeError as e: print(f"Error: Invalid JSON in {args.input}: {e}", file=sys.stderr) sys.exit(1) if "forecast_periods" not in data: print("Error: Missing required field 'forecast_periods' in input data", file=sys.stderr) sys.exit(1) results = track_forecast_accuracy(data) if args.format == "json": print(json.dumps(results, indent=2)) else: print(format_text_report(results)) if __name__ == "__main__": main() FILE:revenue-operations/scripts/gtm_efficiency_calculator.py #!/usr/bin/env python3 """GTM Efficiency Calculator - Calculates go-to-market efficiency metrics for SaaS. Computes Magic Number, LTV:CAC, CAC Payback, Burn Multiple, Rule of 40, and Net Dollar Retention with industry benchmarking and ratings. Usage: python gtm_efficiency_calculator.py gtm_data.json --format text python gtm_efficiency_calculator.py gtm_data.json --format json """ import argparse import json import sys from typing import Any def safe_divide(numerator: float, denominator: float, default: float = 0.0) -> float: """Safely divide two numbers, returning default if denominator is zero.""" if denominator == 0: return default return numerator / denominator # --- Benchmark tables --- # Each benchmark defines green/yellow/red thresholds # and optional percentile placement guidance BENCHMARKS = { "magic_number": { "green": {"min": 0.75, "label": ">0.75 - Efficient GTM spend"}, "yellow": {"min": 0.50, "max": 0.75, "label": "0.50-0.75 - Acceptable efficiency"}, "red": {"max": 0.50, "label": "<0.50 - Inefficient GTM spend"}, "elite": 1.0, "description": "Net New ARR / Prior Period S&M Spend", }, "ltv_cac_ratio": { "green": {"min": 3.0, "label": ">3:1 - Strong unit economics"}, "yellow": {"min": 1.0, "max": 3.0, "label": "1:1-3:1 - Marginal unit economics"}, "red": {"max": 1.0, "label": "<1:1 - Unsustainable unit economics"}, "elite": 5.0, "description": "Customer LTV / Customer Acquisition Cost", }, "cac_payback_months": { "green": {"max": 18, "label": "<18 months - Healthy payback"}, "yellow": {"min": 18, "max": 24, "label": "18-24 months - Acceptable payback"}, "red": {"min": 24, "label": ">24 months - Capital intensive"}, "elite": 12, "description": "CAC / (ARPA x Gross Margin) in months", }, "burn_multiple": { "green": {"max": 2.0, "label": "<2x - Capital efficient growth"}, "yellow": {"min": 2.0, "max": 4.0, "label": "2-4x - Moderate burn"}, "red": {"min": 4.0, "label": ">4x - Unsustainable burn"}, "elite": 1.0, "description": "Net Burn / Net New ARR", }, "rule_of_40": { "green": {"min": 40, "label": ">40% - Strong balance of growth & profitability"}, "yellow": {"min": 20, "max": 40, "label": "20-40% - Acceptable balance"}, "red": {"max": 20, "label": "<20% - Needs improvement"}, "elite": 60, "description": "Revenue Growth % + FCF Margin %", }, "ndr_pct": { "green": {"min": 110, "label": ">110% - Strong expansion revenue"}, "yellow": {"min": 100, "max": 110, "label": "100-110% - Stable base"}, "red": {"max": 100, "label": "<100% - Net revenue contraction"}, "elite": 130, "description": "(Begin ARR + Expansion - Contraction - Churn) / Begin ARR", }, } def rate_metric(metric_name: str, value: float) -> dict[str, str]: """Rate a metric as Green/Yellow/Red based on benchmark thresholds. Args: metric_name: Key into BENCHMARKS dict. value: The metric value to rate. Returns: Dict with rating color, label, and percentile guidance. """ bench = BENCHMARKS.get(metric_name) if not bench: return {"rating": "Unknown", "label": "No benchmark available"} # For metrics where lower is better (cac_payback, burn_multiple) lower_is_better = metric_name in ("cac_payback_months", "burn_multiple") if lower_is_better: if "max" in bench["green"] and value <= bench["green"]["max"]: rating = "Green" label = bench["green"]["label"] elif "min" in bench.get("yellow", {}) and "max" in bench.get("yellow", {}): if bench["yellow"]["min"] <= value <= bench["yellow"]["max"]: rating = "Yellow" label = bench["yellow"]["label"] else: rating = "Red" label = bench["red"]["label"] else: rating = "Red" label = bench["red"]["label"] else: if "min" in bench["green"] and value >= bench["green"]["min"]: rating = "Green" label = bench["green"]["label"] elif "min" in bench.get("yellow", {}) and "max" in bench.get("yellow", {}): if bench["yellow"]["min"] <= value <= bench["yellow"]["max"]: rating = "Yellow" label = bench["yellow"]["label"] else: rating = "Red" label = bench["red"]["label"] else: rating = "Red" label = bench["red"]["label"] # Percentile placement (simplified) elite = bench.get("elite", 0) if lower_is_better: if elite > 0 and value > 0: if value <= elite: percentile = "Top 10%" elif rating == "Green": percentile = "Top 25%" elif rating == "Yellow": percentile = "Median" else: percentile = "Below median" else: percentile = "N/A" else: if elite > 0: if value >= elite: percentile = "Top 10%" elif rating == "Green": percentile = "Top 25%" elif rating == "Yellow": percentile = "Median" else: percentile = "Below median" else: percentile = "N/A" return { "rating": rating, "label": label, "percentile": percentile, } def calculate_magic_number(net_new_arr: float, sm_spend: float) -> dict[str, Any]: """Calculate Magic Number. Formula: Net New ARR / Prior Period S&M Spend Target: >0.75 Args: net_new_arr: Net new annual recurring revenue in the period. sm_spend: Sales & marketing spend in the prior period. Returns: Magic number value with rating and benchmark. """ value = safe_divide(net_new_arr, sm_spend) benchmark = rate_metric("magic_number", value) return { "value": round(value, 2), "net_new_arr": net_new_arr, "sm_spend": sm_spend, "formula": "Net New ARR / Prior Period S&M Spend", "target": ">0.75", **benchmark, } def calculate_ltv_cac( arpa_monthly: float, gross_margin_pct: float, annual_churn_rate_pct: float, cac: float, ) -> dict[str, Any]: """Calculate LTV:CAC Ratio. LTV = ARPA_monthly x 12 x Gross Margin / Annual Churn Rate Ratio = LTV / CAC Target: >3:1 Args: arpa_monthly: Average revenue per account per month. gross_margin_pct: Gross margin as percentage (e.g., 78 for 78%). annual_churn_rate_pct: Annual churn rate as percentage (e.g., 8 for 8%). cac: Customer acquisition cost. Returns: LTV:CAC ratio with component values, rating, and benchmark. """ gross_margin = gross_margin_pct / 100 churn_rate = annual_churn_rate_pct / 100 arpa_annual = arpa_monthly * 12 ltv = safe_divide(arpa_annual * gross_margin, churn_rate) ratio = safe_divide(ltv, cac) benchmark = rate_metric("ltv_cac_ratio", ratio) return { "ratio": round(ratio, 1), "ltv": round(ltv, 2), "cac": cac, "arpa_monthly": arpa_monthly, "arpa_annual": arpa_annual, "gross_margin_pct": gross_margin_pct, "annual_churn_rate_pct": annual_churn_rate_pct, "formula": "LTV (ARPA x Gross Margin / Churn Rate) / CAC", "target": ">3:1", **benchmark, } def calculate_cac_payback( cac: float, arpa_monthly: float, gross_margin_pct: float ) -> dict[str, Any]: """Calculate CAC Payback Period. Formula: CAC / (ARPA_monthly x Gross Margin) in months Target: <18 months Args: cac: Customer acquisition cost. arpa_monthly: Average revenue per account per month. gross_margin_pct: Gross margin as percentage. Returns: CAC payback months with rating and benchmark. """ gross_margin = gross_margin_pct / 100 monthly_contribution = arpa_monthly * gross_margin payback_months = safe_divide(cac, monthly_contribution) benchmark = rate_metric("cac_payback_months", payback_months) return { "months": round(payback_months, 1), "cac": cac, "arpa_monthly": arpa_monthly, "gross_margin_pct": gross_margin_pct, "monthly_contribution": round(monthly_contribution, 2), "formula": "CAC / (ARPA_monthly x Gross Margin)", "target": "<18 months", **benchmark, } def calculate_burn_multiple(net_burn: float, net_new_arr: float) -> dict[str, Any]: """Calculate Burn Multiple. Formula: Net Burn / Net New ARR Target: <2x (lower is better) Args: net_burn: Net cash burn in the period. net_new_arr: Net new ARR added in the period. Returns: Burn multiple with rating and benchmark. """ value = safe_divide(net_burn, net_new_arr) benchmark = rate_metric("burn_multiple", value) return { "value": round(value, 2), "net_burn": net_burn, "net_new_arr": net_new_arr, "formula": "Net Burn / Net New ARR", "target": "<2x", **benchmark, } def calculate_rule_of_40( revenue_growth_pct: float, fcf_margin_pct: float ) -> dict[str, Any]: """Calculate Rule of 40. Formula: Revenue Growth % + FCF Margin % Target: >40% Args: revenue_growth_pct: Year-over-year revenue growth percentage. fcf_margin_pct: Free cash flow margin percentage. Returns: Rule of 40 score with rating and benchmark. """ value = revenue_growth_pct + fcf_margin_pct benchmark = rate_metric("rule_of_40", value) return { "value": round(value, 1), "revenue_growth_pct": revenue_growth_pct, "fcf_margin_pct": fcf_margin_pct, "formula": "Revenue Growth % + FCF Margin %", "target": ">40%", **benchmark, } def calculate_ndr( beginning_arr: float, expansion_arr: float, contraction_arr: float, churned_arr: float, ) -> dict[str, Any]: """Calculate Net Dollar Retention. Formula: (Beginning ARR + Expansion - Contraction - Churn) / Beginning ARR Target: >110% Args: beginning_arr: ARR at start of period. expansion_arr: Expansion revenue from existing customers. contraction_arr: Revenue lost from downgrades. churned_arr: Revenue lost from customer churn. Returns: NDR percentage with rating and benchmark. """ ending_arr = beginning_arr + expansion_arr - contraction_arr - churned_arr ndr_pct = safe_divide(ending_arr, beginning_arr) * 100 benchmark = rate_metric("ndr_pct", ndr_pct) return { "ndr_pct": round(ndr_pct, 1), "beginning_arr": beginning_arr, "expansion_arr": expansion_arr, "contraction_arr": contraction_arr, "churned_arr": churned_arr, "ending_arr": round(ending_arr, 2), "formula": "(Begin ARR + Expansion - Contraction - Churn) / Begin ARR", "target": ">110%", **benchmark, } def generate_recommendations(metrics: dict) -> list[str]: """Generate strategic recommendations based on GTM efficiency metrics. Args: metrics: Dict of all calculated metric results. Returns: List of recommendation strings. """ recs = [] # Magic Number mn = metrics["magic_number"] if mn["rating"] == "Red": recs.append( f"Magic Number is {mn['value']} (target >0.75). GTM spend is inefficient. " "Audit channel ROI, optimize sales productivity, and consider reducing " "low-performing spend." ) elif mn["rating"] == "Yellow": recs.append( f"Magic Number is {mn['value']}. GTM efficiency is acceptable but can improve. " "Focus on sales enablement and pipeline quality over quantity." ) # LTV:CAC lc = metrics["ltv_cac"] if lc["rating"] == "Red": recs.append( f"LTV:CAC ratio is {lc['ratio']}:1 (target >3:1). Unit economics are unsustainable. " "Reduce CAC through better targeting, improve retention to increase LTV, " "or increase ARPA through pricing optimization." ) elif lc["rating"] == "Yellow": recs.append( f"LTV:CAC ratio is {lc['ratio']}:1. Unit economics are marginal. " "Focus on reducing churn and expanding within existing accounts." ) # CAC Payback cp = metrics["cac_payback"] if cp["rating"] == "Red": recs.append( f"CAC payback is {cp['months']} months (target <18). Capital recovery is too slow. " "Reduce acquisition costs or increase gross-margin-weighted ARPA." ) # Burn Multiple bm = metrics["burn_multiple"] if bm["rating"] == "Red": recs.append( f"Burn multiple is {bm['value']}x (target <2x). Cash consumption relative to " "growth is unsustainable. Prioritize operating efficiency and path to profitability." ) # Rule of 40 r40 = metrics["rule_of_40"] if r40["rating"] == "Red": recs.append( f"Rule of 40 score is {r40['value']}% (target >40%). Balance of growth and " "profitability needs improvement. Either accelerate growth or improve margins." ) # NDR ndr = metrics["ndr"] if ndr["rating"] == "Red": recs.append( f"NDR is {ndr['ndr_pct']}% (target >110%). Net revenue is contracting from " "the existing base. Prioritize churn reduction and expansion playbooks." ) elif ndr["rating"] == "Yellow": recs.append( f"NDR is {ndr['ndr_pct']}%. Base is stable but not expanding. " "Invest in cross-sell/upsell motions and customer success capacity." ) # Positive summary if everything is green green_count = sum( 1 for m in metrics.values() if isinstance(m, dict) and m.get("rating") == "Green" ) total_metrics = 6 if green_count == total_metrics: recs.append( "All GTM efficiency metrics are in healthy ranges. Maintain current " "trajectory and optimize for best-in-class performance." ) elif green_count >= 4: recs.append( f"{green_count}/{total_metrics} metrics are green. GTM efficiency is generally " "healthy. Address the yellow/red areas for continuous improvement." ) return recs def calculate_all_metrics(data: dict) -> dict[str, Any]: """Calculate all GTM efficiency metrics from input data. Args: data: Input data with revenue, costs, and customers sections. Returns: Complete GTM efficiency analysis results. """ revenue = data["revenue"] costs = data["costs"] customers = data["customers"] metrics = { "magic_number": calculate_magic_number( net_new_arr=revenue["net_new_arr"], sm_spend=costs["sales_marketing_spend"], ), "ltv_cac": calculate_ltv_cac( arpa_monthly=revenue["arpa_monthly"], gross_margin_pct=costs["gross_margin_pct"], annual_churn_rate_pct=customers["annual_churn_rate_pct"], cac=costs["cac"], ), "cac_payback": calculate_cac_payback( cac=costs["cac"], arpa_monthly=revenue["arpa_monthly"], gross_margin_pct=costs["gross_margin_pct"], ), "burn_multiple": calculate_burn_multiple( net_burn=costs["net_burn"], net_new_arr=revenue["net_new_arr"], ), "rule_of_40": calculate_rule_of_40( revenue_growth_pct=revenue["revenue_growth_pct"], fcf_margin_pct=costs["fcf_margin_pct"], ), "ndr": calculate_ndr( beginning_arr=customers["beginning_arr"], expansion_arr=customers["expansion_arr"], contraction_arr=customers["contraction_arr"], churned_arr=customers["churned_arr"], ), } metrics["recommendations"] = generate_recommendations(metrics) return metrics def format_currency(value: float) -> str: """Format a number as currency.""" if abs(value) >= 1_000_000: return f"${value / 1_000_000:,.1f}M" elif abs(value) >= 1_000: return f"${value / 1_000:,.1f}K" return f"${value:,.0f}" def format_text_report(results: dict) -> str: """Format analysis results as a human-readable text report.""" lines = [] lines.append("=" * 70) lines.append("GTM EFFICIENCY REPORT") lines.append("=" * 70) # Metric summary table metrics_order = [ ("magic_number", "Magic Number", lambda m: f"{m['value']}"), ("ltv_cac", "LTV:CAC Ratio", lambda m: f"{m['ratio']}:1"), ("cac_payback", "CAC Payback", lambda m: f"{m['months']} months"), ("burn_multiple", "Burn Multiple", lambda m: f"{m['value']}x"), ("rule_of_40", "Rule of 40", lambda m: f"{m['value']}%"), ("ndr", "Net Dollar Retention", lambda m: f"{m['ndr_pct']}%"), ] lines.append("") lines.append("METRICS SUMMARY") lines.append("-" * 70) lines.append(f" {'Metric':25s} {'Value':>12s} {'Rating':>8s} {'Target':>15s}") lines.append(f" {'':25s} {'':>12s} {'':>8s} {'':>15s}") for key, name, fmt_fn in metrics_order: m = results[key] lines.append( f" {name:25s} {fmt_fn(m):>12s} {m['rating']:>8s} {m['target']:>15s}" ) # Detailed breakdown lines.append("") lines.append("DETAILED BREAKDOWN") lines.append("-" * 70) # Magic Number mn = results["magic_number"] lines.append("") lines.append(f" MAGIC NUMBER: {mn['value']}") lines.append(f" Net New ARR: {format_currency(mn['net_new_arr'])}") lines.append(f" S&M Spend: {format_currency(mn['sm_spend'])}") lines.append(f" Rating: {mn['rating']} - {mn['label']}") lines.append(f" Percentile: {mn['percentile']}") # LTV:CAC lc = results["ltv_cac"] lines.append("") lines.append(f" LTV:CAC RATIO: {lc['ratio']}:1") lines.append(f" Customer LTV: {format_currency(lc['ltv'])}") lines.append(f" CAC: {format_currency(lc['cac'])}") lines.append(f" ARPA (Monthly): {format_currency(lc['arpa_monthly'])}") lines.append(f" Gross Margin: {lc['gross_margin_pct']}%") lines.append(f" Churn Rate: {lc['annual_churn_rate_pct']}%") lines.append(f" Rating: {lc['rating']} - {lc['label']}") lines.append(f" Percentile: {lc['percentile']}") # CAC Payback cp = results["cac_payback"] lines.append("") lines.append(f" CAC PAYBACK: {cp['months']} months") lines.append(f" CAC: {format_currency(cp['cac'])}") lines.append(f" Monthly Contribution:{format_currency(cp['monthly_contribution'])}") lines.append(f" Rating: {cp['rating']} - {cp['label']}") lines.append(f" Percentile: {cp['percentile']}") # Burn Multiple bm = results["burn_multiple"] lines.append("") lines.append(f" BURN MULTIPLE: {bm['value']}x") lines.append(f" Net Burn: {format_currency(bm['net_burn'])}") lines.append(f" Net New ARR: {format_currency(bm['net_new_arr'])}") lines.append(f" Rating: {bm['rating']} - {bm['label']}") lines.append(f" Percentile: {bm['percentile']}") # Rule of 40 r40 = results["rule_of_40"] lines.append("") lines.append(f" RULE OF 40: {r40['value']}%") lines.append(f" Revenue Growth: {r40['revenue_growth_pct']}%") lines.append(f" FCF Margin: {r40['fcf_margin_pct']}%") lines.append(f" Rating: {r40['rating']} - {r40['label']}") lines.append(f" Percentile: {r40['percentile']}") # NDR ndr = results["ndr"] lines.append("") lines.append(f" NET DOLLAR RETENTION: {ndr['ndr_pct']}%") lines.append(f" Beginning ARR: {format_currency(ndr['beginning_arr'])}") lines.append(f" Expansion: +{format_currency(ndr['expansion_arr'])}") lines.append(f" Contraction: -{format_currency(ndr['contraction_arr'])}") lines.append(f" Churn: -{format_currency(ndr['churned_arr'])}") lines.append(f" Ending ARR: {format_currency(ndr['ending_arr'])}") lines.append(f" Rating: {ndr['rating']} - {ndr['label']}") lines.append(f" Percentile: {ndr['percentile']}") # Recommendations lines.append("") lines.append("RECOMMENDATIONS") lines.append("-" * 70) for i, rec in enumerate(results["recommendations"], 1): lines.append(f" {i}. {rec}") lines.append("") lines.append("=" * 70) return "\n".join(lines) def main() -> None: """Main entry point for GTM efficiency calculator CLI.""" parser = argparse.ArgumentParser( description="Calculate GTM efficiency metrics for SaaS revenue teams." ) parser.add_argument( "input", help="Path to JSON file containing GTM data", ) parser.add_argument( "--format", choices=["json", "text"], default="text", help="Output format: json or text (default: text)", ) args = parser.parse_args() try: with open(args.input, "r") as f: data = json.load(f) except FileNotFoundError: print(f"Error: File not found: {args.input}", file=sys.stderr) sys.exit(1) except json.JSONDecodeError as e: print(f"Error: Invalid JSON in {args.input}: {e}", file=sys.stderr) sys.exit(1) required_sections = ["revenue", "costs", "customers"] for section in required_sections: if section not in data: print( f"Error: Missing required section '{section}' in input data", file=sys.stderr, ) sys.exit(1) results = calculate_all_metrics(data) if args.format == "json": print(json.dumps(results, indent=2)) else: print(format_text_report(results)) if __name__ == "__main__": main() FILE:revenue-operations/scripts/pipeline_analyzer.py #!/usr/bin/env python3 """Pipeline Analyzer - Analyzes sales pipeline health for SaaS revenue teams. Calculates pipeline coverage ratios, stage conversion rates, sales velocity, deal aging risks, and concentration risks from pipeline data. Usage: python pipeline_analyzer.py --input pipeline.json --format text python pipeline_analyzer.py --input pipeline.json --format json """ import argparse import json import sys from datetime import datetime, date from typing import Any def safe_divide(numerator: float, denominator: float, default: float = 0.0) -> float: """Safely divide two numbers, returning default if denominator is zero.""" if denominator == 0: return default return numerator / denominator def parse_date(date_str: str) -> date: """Parse a date string in YYYY-MM-DD format.""" return datetime.strptime(date_str, "%Y-%m-%d").date() def get_quarter(d: date) -> str: """Return the quarter string for a given date (e.g., '2025-Q1').""" quarter = (d.month - 1) // 3 + 1 return f"{d.year}-Q{quarter}" def calculate_coverage_ratio(deals: list[dict], quota: float) -> dict[str, Any]: """Calculate pipeline coverage ratio against quota. Target: 3-4x pipeline coverage for healthy pipeline. """ total_pipeline = sum(d["value"] for d in deals if d["stage"] != "Closed Won") ratio = safe_divide(total_pipeline, quota) if ratio >= 4.0: rating = "Strong" elif ratio >= 3.0: rating = "Healthy" elif ratio >= 2.0: rating = "At Risk" else: rating = "Critical" return { "total_pipeline_value": total_pipeline, "quota": quota, "coverage_ratio": round(ratio, 2), "rating": rating, "target": "3.0x - 4.0x", } def calculate_stage_conversion_rates( deals: list[dict], stages: list[str] ) -> list[dict[str, Any]]: """Calculate stage-to-stage conversion rates. Measures the percentage of deals that progress from one stage to the next. """ stage_order = {stage: i for i, stage in enumerate(stages)} stage_counts: dict[str, int] = {stage: 0 for stage in stages} for deal in deals: stage = deal["stage"] if stage in stage_order: stage_idx = stage_order[stage] # A deal at stage N has passed through all stages 0..N for i in range(stage_idx + 1): stage_counts[stages[i]] += 1 conversions = [] for i in range(len(stages) - 1): from_stage = stages[i] to_stage = stages[i + 1] from_count = stage_counts[from_stage] to_count = stage_counts[to_stage] rate = safe_divide(to_count, from_count) * 100 conversions.append({ "from_stage": from_stage, "to_stage": to_stage, "from_count": from_count, "to_count": to_count, "conversion_rate_pct": round(rate, 1), }) return conversions def calculate_sales_velocity(deals: list[dict]) -> dict[str, Any]: """Calculate sales velocity. Formula: (# opportunities x avg deal size x win rate) / avg sales cycle length Result is revenue per day. """ if not deals: return { "num_opportunities": 0, "avg_deal_size": 0, "win_rate_pct": 0, "avg_cycle_days": 0, "velocity_per_day": 0, "velocity_per_month": 0, } won_deals = [d for d in deals if d["stage"] == "Closed Won"] open_deals = [d for d in deals if d["stage"] != "Closed Won"] all_considered = deals num_opportunities = len(all_considered) avg_deal_size = safe_divide( sum(d["value"] for d in all_considered), num_opportunities ) win_rate = safe_divide(len(won_deals), num_opportunities) avg_cycle_days = safe_divide( sum(d["age_days"] for d in all_considered), num_opportunities ) velocity_per_day = safe_divide( num_opportunities * avg_deal_size * win_rate, avg_cycle_days ) return { "num_opportunities": num_opportunities, "avg_deal_size": round(avg_deal_size, 2), "win_rate_pct": round(win_rate * 100, 1), "avg_cycle_days": round(avg_cycle_days, 1), "velocity_per_day": round(velocity_per_day, 2), "velocity_per_month": round(velocity_per_day * 30, 2), } def analyze_deal_aging( deals: list[dict], average_cycle_days: int, stages: list[str] ) -> dict[str, Any]: """Analyze deal aging and flag stale deals. Flags deals older than 2x the average cycle time. Uses stage-specific thresholds based on position in the pipeline. """ aging_threshold = average_cycle_days * 2 num_stages = len(stages) stage_order = {stage: i for i, stage in enumerate(stages)} # Stage-specific thresholds: early stages get more time, later stages less stage_thresholds: dict[str, int] = {} for i, stage in enumerate(stages): if stage == "Closed Won": continue # Progressive thresholds: first stage gets full cycle, last open stage gets 50% progress = safe_divide(i, num_stages - 1) threshold = int(average_cycle_days * (1.0 + (1.0 - progress))) stage_thresholds[stage] = threshold aging_deals = [] healthy_deals = 0 at_risk_deals = 0 for deal in deals: if deal["stage"] == "Closed Won": continue stage = deal["stage"] age = deal["age_days"] threshold = stage_thresholds.get(stage, aging_threshold) if age > threshold: at_risk_deals += 1 aging_deals.append({ "id": deal["id"], "name": deal["name"], "stage": stage, "age_days": age, "threshold_days": threshold, "days_over": age - threshold, "value": deal["value"], }) else: healthy_deals += 1 aging_deals.sort(key=lambda x: x["days_over"], reverse=True) return { "global_aging_threshold_days": aging_threshold, "stage_thresholds": stage_thresholds, "total_open_deals": healthy_deals + at_risk_deals, "healthy_deals": healthy_deals, "at_risk_deals": at_risk_deals, "aging_deals": aging_deals, } def assess_pipeline_risk( deals: list[dict], quota: float, stages: list[str] ) -> dict[str, Any]: """Assess overall pipeline risk. Checks for: - Concentration risk (>40% in single deal) - Stage distribution health - Coverage gap by quarter """ open_deals = [d for d in deals if d["stage"] != "Closed Won"] total_pipeline = sum(d["value"] for d in open_deals) # Concentration risk concentration_risks = [] for deal in open_deals: pct = safe_divide(deal["value"], total_pipeline) * 100 if pct > 40: concentration_risks.append({ "id": deal["id"], "name": deal["name"], "value": deal["value"], "pct_of_pipeline": round(pct, 1), "risk_level": "HIGH", }) elif pct > 25: concentration_risks.append({ "id": deal["id"], "name": deal["name"], "value": deal["value"], "pct_of_pipeline": round(pct, 1), "risk_level": "MEDIUM", }) has_concentration_risk = any( r["risk_level"] == "HIGH" for r in concentration_risks ) # Stage distribution stage_distribution: dict[str, dict] = {} for stage in stages: if stage == "Closed Won": continue stage_deals = [d for d in open_deals if d["stage"] == stage] count = len(stage_deals) value = sum(d["value"] for d in stage_deals) stage_distribution[stage] = { "count": count, "value": value, "pct_of_pipeline": round(safe_divide(value, total_pipeline) * 100, 1), } # Check for empty stages (unhealthy funnel) empty_stages = [ stage for stage, data in stage_distribution.items() if data["count"] == 0 ] # Coverage gap by quarter today = date.today() quarterly_coverage: dict[str, float] = {} for deal in open_deals: try: close_date = parse_date(deal["close_date"]) quarter = get_quarter(close_date) quarterly_coverage[quarter] = ( quarterly_coverage.get(quarter, 0) + deal["value"] ) except (ValueError, KeyError): pass quarterly_target = quota / 4 coverage_gaps = [] for quarter, value in sorted(quarterly_coverage.items()): coverage = safe_divide(value, quarterly_target) if coverage < 3.0: coverage_gaps.append({ "quarter": quarter, "pipeline_value": value, "quarterly_target": quarterly_target, "coverage_ratio": round(coverage, 2), "gap": "Below 3x target", }) # Overall risk rating risk_factors = 0 if has_concentration_risk: risk_factors += 2 if len(empty_stages) > 0: risk_factors += 1 if len(coverage_gaps) > 0: risk_factors += 1 if safe_divide(total_pipeline, quota) < 3.0: risk_factors += 2 if risk_factors >= 4: overall_risk = "HIGH" elif risk_factors >= 2: overall_risk = "MEDIUM" else: overall_risk = "LOW" return { "overall_risk": overall_risk, "risk_factors_count": risk_factors, "concentration_risks": concentration_risks, "has_concentration_risk": has_concentration_risk, "stage_distribution": stage_distribution, "empty_stages": empty_stages, "coverage_gaps": coverage_gaps, } def analyze_pipeline(data: dict) -> dict[str, Any]: """Run complete pipeline analysis. Args: data: Pipeline data with deals, quota, stages, and average_cycle_days. Returns: Complete analysis results dictionary. """ deals = data["deals"] quota = data["quota"] stages = data["stages"] average_cycle_days = data.get("average_cycle_days", 45) return { "coverage": calculate_coverage_ratio(deals, quota), "stage_conversions": calculate_stage_conversion_rates(deals, stages), "velocity": calculate_sales_velocity(deals), "aging": analyze_deal_aging(deals, average_cycle_days, stages), "risk": assess_pipeline_risk(deals, quota, stages), } def format_currency(value: float) -> str: """Format a number as currency.""" if value >= 1_000_000: return f"${value / 1_000_000:,.1f}M" elif value >= 1_000: return f"${value / 1_000:,.1f}K" return f"${value:,.0f}" def format_text_report(results: dict) -> str: """Format analysis results as a human-readable text report.""" lines = [] lines.append("=" * 70) lines.append("PIPELINE ANALYSIS REPORT") lines.append("=" * 70) # Coverage cov = results["coverage"] lines.append("") lines.append("PIPELINE COVERAGE") lines.append("-" * 40) lines.append(f" Total Pipeline: {format_currency(cov['total_pipeline_value'])}") lines.append(f" Quota Target: {format_currency(cov['quota'])}") lines.append(f" Coverage Ratio: {cov['coverage_ratio']}x (Target: {cov['target']})") lines.append(f" Rating: {cov['rating']}") # Stage Conversions lines.append("") lines.append("STAGE CONVERSION RATES") lines.append("-" * 40) for conv in results["stage_conversions"]: lines.append( f" {conv['from_stage']} -> {conv['to_stage']}: " f"{conv['conversion_rate_pct']}% " f"({conv['to_count']}/{conv['from_count']})" ) # Velocity vel = results["velocity"] lines.append("") lines.append("SALES VELOCITY") lines.append("-" * 40) lines.append(f" Opportunities: {vel['num_opportunities']}") lines.append(f" Avg Deal Size: {format_currency(vel['avg_deal_size'])}") lines.append(f" Win Rate: {vel['win_rate_pct']}%") lines.append(f" Avg Cycle: {vel['avg_cycle_days']} days") lines.append(f" Velocity/Day: {format_currency(vel['velocity_per_day'])}") lines.append(f" Velocity/Month: {format_currency(vel['velocity_per_month'])}") # Aging aging = results["aging"] lines.append("") lines.append("DEAL AGING ANALYSIS") lines.append("-" * 40) lines.append(f" Total Open Deals: {aging['total_open_deals']}") lines.append(f" Healthy: {aging['healthy_deals']}") lines.append(f" At Risk: {aging['at_risk_deals']}") if aging["aging_deals"]: lines.append("") lines.append(" AGING DEALS (needs attention):") for deal in aging["aging_deals"]: lines.append( f" - {deal['name']} ({deal['stage']}): " f"{deal['age_days']}d (threshold: {deal['threshold_days']}d, " f"+{deal['days_over']}d over) | {format_currency(deal['value'])}" ) # Risk risk = results["risk"] lines.append("") lines.append("PIPELINE RISK ASSESSMENT") lines.append("-" * 40) lines.append(f" Overall Risk: {risk['overall_risk']}") lines.append(f" Risk Factors: {risk['risk_factors_count']}") if risk["concentration_risks"]: lines.append("") lines.append(" CONCENTRATION RISKS:") for cr in risk["concentration_risks"]: lines.append( f" - {cr['name']}: {format_currency(cr['value'])} " f"({cr['pct_of_pipeline']}% of pipeline) [{cr['risk_level']}]" ) if risk["empty_stages"]: lines.append("") lines.append(f" EMPTY STAGES: {', '.join(risk['empty_stages'])}") lines.append("") lines.append(" STAGE DISTRIBUTION:") for stage, data in risk["stage_distribution"].items(): bar = "#" * max(1, int(data["pct_of_pipeline"] / 2)) lines.append( f" {stage:20s} {data['count']:3d} deals " f"{format_currency(data['value']):>10s} " f"{data['pct_of_pipeline']:5.1f}% {bar}" ) if risk["coverage_gaps"]: lines.append("") lines.append(" COVERAGE GAPS BY QUARTER:") for gap in risk["coverage_gaps"]: lines.append( f" - {gap['quarter']}: {gap['coverage_ratio']}x coverage " f"({format_currency(gap['pipeline_value'])} vs " f"{format_currency(gap['quarterly_target'])} target)" ) lines.append("") lines.append("=" * 70) return "\n".join(lines) def main() -> None: """Main entry point for pipeline analyzer CLI.""" parser = argparse.ArgumentParser( description="Analyze sales pipeline health for SaaS revenue teams." ) parser.add_argument( "--input", required=True, help="Path to JSON file containing pipeline data", ) parser.add_argument( "--format", choices=["json", "text"], default="text", help="Output format: json or text (default: text)", ) args = parser.parse_args() try: with open(args.input, "r") as f: data = json.load(f) except FileNotFoundError: print(f"Error: File not found: {args.input}", file=sys.stderr) sys.exit(1) except json.JSONDecodeError as e: print(f"Error: Invalid JSON in {args.input}: {e}", file=sys.stderr) sys.exit(1) # Validate required fields required_fields = ["deals", "quota", "stages"] for field in required_fields: if field not in data: print(f"Error: Missing required field '{field}' in input data", file=sys.stderr) sys.exit(1) results = analyze_pipeline(data) if args.format == "json": print(json.dumps(results, indent=2)) else: print(format_text_report(results)) if __name__ == "__main__": main() FILE:sales-engineer/SKILL.md --- name: "sales-engineer" description: Analyzes RFP/RFI responses for coverage gaps, builds competitive feature comparison matrices, and plans proof-of-concept (POC) engagements for pre-sales engineering. Use when responding to RFPs, bids, or proposal requests; comparing product features against competitors; planning or scoring a customer POC or sales demo; preparing a technical proposal; or performing win/loss competitor analysis. Handles tasks described as 'RFP response', 'bid response', 'proposal response', 'competitor comparison', 'feature matrix', 'POC planning', 'sales demo prep', or 'pre-sales engineering'. --- # Sales Engineer Skill ## 5-Phase Workflow ### Phase 1: Discovery & Research **Objective:** Understand customer requirements, technical environment, and business drivers. **Checklist:** - [ ] Conduct technical discovery calls with stakeholders - [ ] Map customer's current architecture and pain points - [ ] Identify integration requirements and constraints - [ ] Document security and compliance requirements - [ ] Assess competitive landscape for this opportunity **Tools:** Run `rfp_response_analyzer.py` to score initial requirement alignment. ```bash python scripts/rfp_response_analyzer.py assets/sample_rfp_data.json --format json > phase1_rfp_results.json ``` **Output:** Technical discovery document, requirement map, initial coverage assessment. **Validation checkpoint:** Coverage score must be >50% and must-have gaps ≤3 before proceeding to Phase 2. Check with: ```bash python scripts/rfp_response_analyzer.py assets/sample_rfp_data.json --format json | python -c "import sys,json; r=json.load(sys.stdin); print('PROCEED' if r['coverage_score']>50 and r['must_have_gaps']<=3 else 'REVIEW')" ``` --- ### Phase 2: Solution Design **Objective:** Design a solution architecture that addresses customer requirements. **Checklist:** - [ ] Map product capabilities to customer requirements - [ ] Design integration architecture - [ ] Identify customization needs and development effort - [ ] Build competitive differentiation strategy - [ ] Create solution architecture diagrams **Tools:** Run `competitive_matrix_builder.py` using Phase 1 data to identify differentiators and vulnerabilities. ```bash python scripts/competitive_matrix_builder.py competitive_data.json --format json > phase2_competitive.json python -c "import json; d=json.load(open('phase2_competitive.json')); print('Differentiators:', d['differentiators']); print('Vulnerabilities:', d['vulnerabilities'])" ``` **Output:** Solution architecture, competitive positioning, technical differentiation strategy. **Validation checkpoint:** Confirm at least one strong differentiator exists per customer priority before proceeding to Phase 3. If no differentiators found, escalate to Product Team (see Integration Points). --- ### Phase 3: Demo Preparation & Delivery **Objective:** Deliver compelling technical demonstrations tailored to stakeholder priorities. **Checklist:** - [ ] Build demo environment matching customer's use case - [ ] Create demo script with talking points per stakeholder role - [ ] Prepare objection handling responses - [ ] Rehearse failure scenarios and recovery paths - [ ] Collect feedback and adjust approach **Templates:** Use `assets/demo_script_template.md` for structured demo preparation. **Output:** Customized demo, stakeholder-specific talking points, feedback capture. **Validation checkpoint:** Demo script must cover every must-have requirement flagged in `phase1_rfp_results.json` before delivery. Cross-reference with: ```bash python -c "import json; rfp=json.load(open('phase1_rfp_results.json')); [print('UNCOVERED:', r) for r in rfp['must_have_requirements'] if r['coverage']=='Gap']" ``` --- ### Phase 4: POC & Evaluation **Objective:** Execute a structured proof-of-concept that validates the solution. **Checklist:** - [ ] Define POC scope, success criteria, and timeline - [ ] Allocate resources and set up environment - [ ] Execute phased testing (core, advanced, edge cases) - [ ] Track progress against success criteria - [ ] Generate evaluation scorecard **Tools:** Run `poc_planner.py` to generate the complete POC plan. ```bash python scripts/poc_planner.py poc_data.json --format json > phase4_poc_plan.json python -c "import json; p=json.load(open('phase4_poc_plan.json')); print('Go/No-Go:', p['recommendation'])" ``` **Templates:** Use `assets/poc_scorecard_template.md` for evaluation tracking. **Output:** POC plan, evaluation scorecard, go/no-go recommendation. **Validation checkpoint:** POC conversion requires scorecard score >60% across all evaluation dimensions (functionality, performance, integration, usability, support). If score <60%, document gaps and loop back to Phase 2 for solution redesign. --- ### Phase 5: Proposal & Closing **Objective:** Deliver a technical proposal that supports the commercial close. **Checklist:** - [ ] Compile POC results and success metrics - [ ] Create technical proposal with implementation plan - [ ] Address outstanding objections with evidence - [ ] Support pricing and packaging discussions - [ ] Conduct win/loss analysis post-decision **Templates:** Use `assets/technical_proposal_template.md` for the proposal document. **Output:** Technical proposal, implementation timeline, risk mitigation plan. --- ## Python Automation Tools ### 1. RFP Response Analyzer **Script:** `scripts/rfp_response_analyzer.py` **Purpose:** Parse RFP/RFI requirements, score coverage, identify gaps, and generate bid/no-bid recommendations. **Coverage Categories:** Full (100%), Partial (50%), Planned (25%), Gap (0%). **Priority Weighting:** Must-Have 3×, Should-Have 2×, Nice-to-Have 1×. **Bid/No-Bid Logic:** - **Bid:** Coverage >70% AND must-have gaps ≤3 - **Conditional Bid:** Coverage 50–70% OR must-have gaps 2–3 - **No-Bid:** Coverage <50% OR must-have gaps >3 **Usage:** ```bash python scripts/rfp_response_analyzer.py assets/sample_rfp_data.json # human-readable python scripts/rfp_response_analyzer.py assets/sample_rfp_data.json --format json # JSON output python scripts/rfp_response_analyzer.py --help ``` **Input Format:** See `assets/sample_rfp_data.json` for the complete schema. --- ### 2. Competitive Matrix Builder **Script:** `scripts/competitive_matrix_builder.py` **Purpose:** Generate feature comparison matrices, calculate competitive scores, identify differentiators and vulnerabilities. **Feature Scoring:** Full (3), Partial (2), Limited (1), None (0). **Usage:** ```bash python scripts/competitive_matrix_builder.py competitive_data.json # human-readable python scripts/competitive_matrix_builder.py competitive_data.json --format json # JSON output ``` **Output Includes:** Feature comparison matrix, weighted competitive scores, differentiators, vulnerabilities, and win themes. --- ### 3. POC Planner **Script:** `scripts/poc_planner.py` **Purpose:** Generate structured POC plans with timeline, resource allocation, success criteria, and evaluation scorecards. **Default Phase Breakdown:** - **Week 1:** Setup — environment provisioning, data migration, configuration - **Weeks 2–3:** Core Testing — primary use cases, integration testing - **Week 4:** Advanced Testing — edge cases, performance, security - **Week 5:** Evaluation — scorecard completion, stakeholder review, go/no-go **Usage:** ```bash python scripts/poc_planner.py poc_data.json # human-readable python scripts/poc_planner.py poc_data.json --format json # JSON output ``` **Output Includes:** Phased POC plan, resource allocation, success criteria, evaluation scorecard, risk register, and go/no-go recommendation framework. --- ## Reference Knowledge Bases | Reference | Description | |-----------|-------------| | `references/rfp-response-guide.md` | RFP/RFI response best practices, compliance matrix, bid/no-bid framework | | `references/competitive-positioning-framework.md` | Competitive analysis methodology, battlecard creation, objection handling | | `references/poc-best-practices.md` | POC planning methodology, success criteria, evaluation frameworks | ## Asset Templates | Template | Purpose | |----------|---------| | `assets/technical_proposal_template.md` | Technical proposal with executive summary, solution architecture, implementation plan | | `assets/demo_script_template.md` | Demo script with agenda, talking points, objection handling | | `assets/poc_scorecard_template.md` | POC evaluation scorecard with weighted scoring | | `assets/sample_rfp_data.json` | Sample RFP data for testing the analyzer | | `assets/expected_output.json` | Expected output from rfp_response_analyzer.py | ## Integration Points - **Marketing Skills** - Leverage competitive intelligence and messaging frameworks from `../../marketing-skill/` - **Product Team** - Coordinate on roadmap items flagged as "Planned" in RFP analysis from `../../product-team/` - **C-Level Advisory** - Escalate strategic deals requiring executive engagement from `../../c-level-advisor/` - **Customer Success** - Hand off POC results and success criteria to CSM from `../customer-success-manager/` --- **Last Updated:** February 2026 **Status:** Production-ready **Tools:** 3 Python automation scripts **References:** 3 knowledge base documents **Templates:** 5 asset files FILE:sales-engineer/assets/demo_script_template.md # Demo Script Template ## Demo Information | Field | Value | |-------|-------| | Customer | [Customer Name] | | Date/Time | [Date and Time] | | Duration | [XX minutes] | | Demo Environment | [Environment URL/Details] | | Presenter | [Sales Engineer Name] | | AE/Account Executive | [AE Name] | --- ## Pre-Demo Checklist - [ ] Demo environment tested and confirmed working - [ ] Sample data loaded and validated - [ ] Backup demo environment prepared - [ ] Screen sharing tested with correct resolution - [ ] Browser tabs pre-loaded with key screens - [ ] Recording setup confirmed (if applicable) - [ ] Customer-specific branding applied (if applicable) - [ ] Network and VPN connectivity verified - [ ] All integrations connected and tested - [ ] Backup slides prepared in case of technical issues --- ## Attendees and Roles | Name | Title | Role in Evaluation | Key Interest | |------|-------|-------------------|--------------| | [Name] | [CTO/VP Eng] | Decision Maker | ROI, strategic fit | | [Name] | [Director] | Champion | Solving [specific problem] | | [Name] | [Manager] | Technical Evaluator | Architecture, integrations | | [Name] | [Analyst] | End User | Day-to-day usability | --- ## Agenda | Time | Duration | Topic | Lead | |------|----------|-------|------| | 0:00 | 5 min | Welcome and introductions | AE | | 0:05 | 5 min | Agenda and objectives | SE | | 0:10 | 20 min | Core demo (Use Cases 1-3) | SE | | 0:30 | 10 min | Integration demo | SE | | 0:40 | 5 min | Admin and security overview | SE | | 0:45 | 10 min | Q&A | SE + AE | | 0:55 | 5 min | Next steps and wrap-up | AE | --- ## Demo Flow ### Opening (5 minutes) **Talking Points:** - Thank attendees for their time - Recap what we learned in discovery: "[Summarize 2-3 key challenges]" - Set expectations: "Today I'll show you how we address [Challenge 1], [Challenge 2], and [Challenge 3]" - Frame the demo: "I'll be using [data type] similar to what you described in our earlier conversations" **Transition:** "Let me start with the challenge you mentioned is most pressing: [Challenge 1]." --- ### Use Case 1: [Name] (7 minutes) **Business Context:** [1-2 sentences on why this matters to the customer] **Demo Steps:** 1. **Step 1:** [Navigate to / Click on / Show...] - **What to say:** "[Explain what they're seeing and why it matters]" - **Highlight:** [Specific feature or capability to emphasize] 2. **Step 2:** [Navigate to / Click on / Show...] - **What to say:** "[Connect this to their specific pain point]" - **Highlight:** [Differentiator from competitor] 3. **Step 3:** [Navigate to / Click on / Show...] - **What to say:** "[Quantify the value - time saved, errors reduced, etc.]" - **Highlight:** [Ease of use or power of the feature] **Key Message:** "[One sentence summarizing the value demonstrated]" **Transition:** "Now that you've seen how we handle [Use Case 1], let me show you [Use Case 2]." --- ### Use Case 2: [Name] (7 minutes) **Business Context:** [1-2 sentences on why this matters to the customer] **Demo Steps:** 1. **Step 1:** [Navigate to / Click on / Show...] - **What to say:** "[Explanation]" - **Highlight:** [Key capability] 2. **Step 2:** [Navigate to / Click on / Show...] - **What to say:** "[Explanation]" - **Highlight:** [Key capability] 3. **Step 3:** [Navigate to / Click on / Show...] - **What to say:** "[Explanation]" - **Highlight:** [Key capability] **Key Message:** "[One sentence summarizing the value demonstrated]" **Transition:** "[Transition statement to next section]" --- ### Use Case 3: [Name] (6 minutes) **Business Context:** [1-2 sentences on why this matters to the customer] **Demo Steps:** 1. **Step 1:** [Description] - **What to say:** "[Explanation]" - **Highlight:** [Key capability] 2. **Step 2:** [Description] - **What to say:** "[Explanation]" - **Highlight:** [Key capability] **Key Message:** "[One sentence summarizing the value demonstrated]" --- ### Integration Demo (10 minutes) **Context:** "You mentioned that integration with [System X] and [System Y] is critical. Let me show you how that works." **Demo Steps:** 1. **Show integration configuration:** - **What to say:** "Setting up the connection takes [X minutes/clicks]" - **Highlight:** Native connector, no custom code required 2. **Show data flow:** - **What to say:** "Data syncs in [real-time/X minute intervals]" - **Highlight:** Reliability, error handling, monitoring 3. **Show end-to-end workflow:** - **What to say:** "Here's the complete flow from [source] to [destination]" - **Highlight:** Automation, reduced manual effort --- ### Admin and Security (5 minutes) **Demo Steps:** 1. **Show RBAC configuration:** - **What to say:** "Administrators can define roles and permissions at [granularity level]" 2. **Show audit log:** - **What to say:** "Every action is logged for compliance and security review" 3. **Show SSO setup:** - **What to say:** "Single sign-on integrates with your existing identity provider" --- ## Objection Handling ### Anticipated Objections | Objection | Response | |-----------|----------| | "[Feature X] looks limited compared to [Competitor]" | "Great observation. Our approach to [Feature X] focuses on [benefit]. What specific aspect of [Feature X] is most important to your workflow? [Then demonstrate or explain how we address the specific need]" | | "How does this handle [edge case]?" | "That's an important scenario. [If supported: Let me show you how that works.] [If not directly: Here's how our customers typically handle that use case...]" | | "What about performance at our scale?" | "Excellent question. Our platform handles [benchmark data]. For your specific scale of [X], we'd recommend [architecture approach]. We can validate this in a POC." | | "The implementation timeline seems long" | "The timeline I shared is for the full solution. We can phase the rollout to deliver value sooner. Phase 1 would give you [core capability] within [X weeks]." | | "What happens if we outgrow this?" | "Our architecture is designed for growth. [Describe scaling approach]. We have customers who have scaled from [X] to [Y] without re-architecture." | ### Recovery Strategies **If the demo breaks:** 1. Stay calm: "Let me switch to [backup environment / backup approach]" 2. Explain what they would have seen 3. Offer to follow up with a recorded walkthrough 4. Pivot to the next demo section **If an unexpected question derails the flow:** 1. Acknowledge: "That's an excellent question" 2. Briefly answer or note it for follow-up 3. Return to the demo flow: "Let me continue with [next section] and we can dive deeper into that during Q&A" **If the audience seems disengaged:** 1. Pause and ask: "Before I continue, is this addressing what you're looking for?" 2. Adjust focus based on their response 3. Skip ahead to the section most relevant to their interests --- ## Post-Demo Actions - [ ] Send thank-you email with recording link (if recorded) - [ ] Share demo environment access credentials (if applicable) - [ ] Send follow-up document addressing unanswered questions - [ ] Schedule next meeting (POC kickoff, technical deep-dive, etc.) - [ ] Update CRM with demo notes and next steps - [ ] Debrief with AE on stakeholder reactions and concerns - [ ] Log key objections and responses for battlecard updates --- ## Notes [Space for real-time notes during the demo] ### Questions Raised 1. [Question] - [Answer / Follow-up needed] 2. [Question] - [Answer / Follow-up needed] ### Feedback Received - [Positive feedback] - [Concerns raised] ### Next Steps Agreed 1. [Action item] - [Owner] - [Date] 2. [Action item] - [Owner] - [Date] FILE:sales-engineer/assets/expected_output.json { "rfp_info": { "rfp_name": "Enterprise Data Analytics Platform RFP", "customer": "Acme Financial Services", "due_date": "2026-03-15", "strategic_value": "high", "deal_value": "$450,000 ARR" }, "coverage_summary": { "overall_coverage_percentage": 84.5, "total_requirements": 21, "full": 14, "partial": 3, "planned": 2, "gap": 2, "must_have_gaps": 0 }, "category_scores": { "Data Integration": { "coverage_percentage": 90.0, "requirements_count": 4, "full": 3, "partial": 1, "planned": 0, "gap": 0, "effort_hours": 34 }, "Analytics & Visualization": { "coverage_percentage": 77.8, "requirements_count": 4, "full": 2, "partial": 1, "planned": 1, "gap": 0, "effort_hours": 56 }, "Security & Compliance": { "coverage_percentage": 81.8, "requirements_count": 4, "full": 3, "partial": 0, "planned": 0, "gap": 1, "effort_hours": 50 }, "Performance & Scalability": { "coverage_percentage": 87.5, "requirements_count": 3, "full": 2, "partial": 1, "planned": 0, "gap": 0, "effort_hours": 32 }, "API & Extensibility": { "coverage_percentage": 87.5, "requirements_count": 3, "full": 2, "partial": 0, "planned": 1, "gap": 0, "effort_hours": 38 }, "Support & SLA": { "coverage_percentage": 100.0, "requirements_count": 2, "full": 2, "partial": 0, "planned": 0, "gap": 0, "effort_hours": 4 }, "Deployment": { "coverage_percentage": 0.0, "requirements_count": 1, "full": 0, "partial": 0, "planned": 0, "gap": 1, "effort_hours": 80 } }, "bid_recommendation": { "decision": "BID", "confidence": "high", "overall_coverage_percentage": 84.5, "must_have_gaps": 0, "strategic_value": "high", "reasons": [ "Coverage score 84.5% exceeds 70% threshold" ] }, "gap_analysis": [ { "id": "R-004", "requirement": "Change data capture (CDC) for real-time sync", "category": "Data Integration", "priority": "should-have", "coverage_status": "partial", "severity": "high", "effort_hours": 16, "mitigation": "Document supported CDC sources; provide configuration guide for non-standard sources" }, { "id": "R-007", "requirement": "Natural language query interface for business users", "category": "Analytics & Visualization", "priority": "should-have", "coverage_status": "planned", "severity": "high", "effort_hours": 24, "mitigation": "Share roadmap timeline; offer guided query builder as interim solution" }, { "id": "R-012", "requirement": "HIPAA compliance for healthcare data handling", "category": "Security & Compliance", "priority": "should-have", "coverage_status": "gap", "severity": "high", "effort_hours": 40, "mitigation": "Evaluate HIPAA certification timeline with compliance team; consider data masking as interim" }, { "id": "R-015", "requirement": "Multi-region deployment with data residency controls", "category": "Performance & Scalability", "priority": "should-have", "coverage_status": "partial", "severity": "high", "effort_hours": 20, "mitigation": "Confirm customer region requirements; provide APAC beta access if needed" }, { "id": "R-008", "requirement": "Predictive analytics and ML model integration", "category": "Analytics & Visualization", "priority": "nice-to-have", "coverage_status": "partial", "severity": "low", "effort_hours": 20, "mitigation": "Demonstrate Python integration for custom models; provide example notebooks" }, { "id": "R-018", "requirement": "Custom plugin/extension framework", "category": "API & Extensibility", "priority": "nice-to-have", "coverage_status": "planned", "severity": "low", "effort_hours": 30, "mitigation": "Current API extensibility covers most use cases; plugin framework will expand options" }, { "id": "R-021", "requirement": "On-premise deployment option", "category": "Deployment", "priority": "nice-to-have", "coverage_status": "gap", "severity": "low", "effort_hours": 80, "mitigation": "Position cloud-first architecture benefits; offer VPC deployment as alternative" } ], "risk_assessment": [ { "risk": "High customization effort", "impact": "high", "description": "230 hours estimated for non-full requirements", "mitigation": "Evaluate resource availability and timeline feasibility before committing" } ], "effort_estimate": { "total_hours": 294, "gap_closure_hours": 230, "full_coverage_hours": 64 }, "requirements_detail": [ { "id": "R-001", "requirement": "Real-time data ingestion from multiple sources (APIs, databases, streaming)", "category": "Data Integration", "priority": "must-have", "coverage_status": "full", "coverage_score": 1.0, "weight": 3.0, "weighted_score": 3.0, "max_weighted": 3.0, "effort_hours": 8, "notes": "Native connectors for 200+ data sources", "mitigation": "" }, { "id": "R-002", "requirement": "Support for SQL and NoSQL data sources", "category": "Data Integration", "priority": "must-have", "coverage_status": "full", "coverage_score": 1.0, "weight": 3.0, "weighted_score": 3.0, "max_weighted": 3.0, "effort_hours": 4, "notes": "Supports PostgreSQL, MySQL, MongoDB, Cassandra, and more", "mitigation": "" }, { "id": "R-003", "requirement": "Automated ETL pipeline creation with visual designer", "category": "Data Integration", "priority": "should-have", "coverage_status": "full", "coverage_score": 1.0, "weight": 2.0, "weighted_score": 2.0, "max_weighted": 2.0, "effort_hours": 6, "notes": "Drag-and-drop pipeline builder included", "mitigation": "" }, { "id": "R-004", "requirement": "Change data capture (CDC) for real-time sync", "category": "Data Integration", "priority": "should-have", "coverage_status": "partial", "coverage_score": 0.5, "weight": 2.0, "weighted_score": 1.0, "max_weighted": 2.0, "effort_hours": 16, "notes": "CDC supported for major databases; some require custom configuration", "mitigation": "Document supported CDC sources; provide configuration guide for non-standard sources" }, { "id": "R-005", "requirement": "Interactive dashboard creation with drag-and-drop", "category": "Analytics & Visualization", "priority": "must-have", "coverage_status": "full", "coverage_score": 1.0, "weight": 3.0, "weighted_score": 3.0, "max_weighted": 3.0, "effort_hours": 4, "notes": "Full drag-and-drop dashboard builder with 50+ chart types", "mitigation": "" }, { "id": "R-006", "requirement": "Embedded analytics with white-labeling support", "category": "Analytics & Visualization", "priority": "must-have", "coverage_status": "full", "coverage_score": 1.0, "weight": 3.0, "weighted_score": 3.0, "max_weighted": 3.0, "effort_hours": 8, "notes": "Full embedding SDK with CSS customization", "mitigation": "" }, { "id": "R-007", "requirement": "Natural language query interface for business users", "category": "Analytics & Visualization", "priority": "should-have", "coverage_status": "planned", "coverage_score": 0.25, "weight": 2.0, "weighted_score": 0.5, "max_weighted": 2.0, "effort_hours": 24, "notes": "NLQ feature on roadmap for Q3 2026", "mitigation": "Share roadmap timeline; offer guided query builder as interim solution" }, { "id": "R-008", "requirement": "Predictive analytics and ML model integration", "category": "Analytics & Visualization", "priority": "nice-to-have", "coverage_status": "partial", "coverage_score": 0.5, "weight": 1.0, "weighted_score": 0.5, "max_weighted": 1.0, "effort_hours": 20, "notes": "Python/R integration available; no built-in ML models", "mitigation": "Demonstrate Python integration for custom models; provide example notebooks" }, { "id": "R-009", "requirement": "Role-based access control (RBAC) with row-level security", "category": "Security & Compliance", "priority": "must-have", "coverage_status": "full", "coverage_score": 1.0, "weight": 3.0, "weighted_score": 3.0, "max_weighted": 3.0, "effort_hours": 6, "notes": "Granular RBAC with row-level and column-level security", "mitigation": "" }, { "id": "R-010", "requirement": "SOC 2 Type II certification", "category": "Security & Compliance", "priority": "must-have", "coverage_status": "full", "coverage_score": 1.0, "weight": 3.0, "weighted_score": 3.0, "max_weighted": 3.0, "effort_hours": 2, "notes": "Current SOC 2 Type II report available upon NDA", "mitigation": "" }, { "id": "R-011", "requirement": "Data encryption at rest and in transit (AES-256, TLS 1.3)", "category": "Security & Compliance", "priority": "must-have", "coverage_status": "full", "coverage_score": 1.0, "weight": 3.0, "weighted_score": 3.0, "max_weighted": 3.0, "effort_hours": 2, "notes": "AES-256 at rest, TLS 1.3 in transit, customer-managed keys supported", "mitigation": "" }, { "id": "R-012", "requirement": "HIPAA compliance for healthcare data handling", "category": "Security & Compliance", "priority": "should-have", "coverage_status": "gap", "coverage_score": 0.0, "weight": 2.0, "weighted_score": 0.0, "max_weighted": 2.0, "effort_hours": 40, "notes": "HIPAA BAA not currently offered", "mitigation": "Evaluate HIPAA certification timeline with compliance team; consider data masking as interim" }, { "id": "R-013", "requirement": "Horizontal scaling to handle 10B+ rows", "category": "Performance & Scalability", "priority": "must-have", "coverage_status": "full", "coverage_score": 1.0, "weight": 3.0, "weighted_score": 3.0, "max_weighted": 3.0, "effort_hours": 8, "notes": "Distributed query engine scales to 50B+ rows", "mitigation": "" }, { "id": "R-014", "requirement": "Sub-second query response for cached dashboards", "category": "Performance & Scalability", "priority": "must-have", "coverage_status": "full", "coverage_score": 1.0, "weight": 3.0, "weighted_score": 3.0, "max_weighted": 3.0, "effort_hours": 4, "notes": "Intelligent caching layer with <500ms p95 for cached queries", "mitigation": "" }, { "id": "R-015", "requirement": "Multi-region deployment with data residency controls", "category": "Performance & Scalability", "priority": "should-have", "coverage_status": "partial", "coverage_score": 0.5, "weight": 2.0, "weighted_score": 1.0, "max_weighted": 2.0, "effort_hours": 20, "notes": "US and EU regions available; APAC region in beta", "mitigation": "Confirm customer region requirements; provide APAC beta access if needed" }, { "id": "R-016", "requirement": "RESTful API with comprehensive documentation", "category": "API & Extensibility", "priority": "must-have", "coverage_status": "full", "coverage_score": 1.0, "weight": 3.0, "weighted_score": 3.0, "max_weighted": 3.0, "effort_hours": 4, "notes": "Full REST API with OpenAPI spec and interactive documentation", "mitigation": "" }, { "id": "R-017", "requirement": "Webhook support for event-driven workflows", "category": "API & Extensibility", "priority": "should-have", "coverage_status": "full", "coverage_score": 1.0, "weight": 2.0, "weighted_score": 2.0, "max_weighted": 2.0, "effort_hours": 4, "notes": "Webhook support for 30+ event types", "mitigation": "" }, { "id": "R-018", "requirement": "Custom plugin/extension framework", "category": "API & Extensibility", "priority": "nice-to-have", "coverage_status": "planned", "coverage_score": 0.25, "weight": 1.0, "weighted_score": 0.25, "max_weighted": 1.0, "effort_hours": 30, "notes": "Plugin framework on roadmap for Q4 2026", "mitigation": "Current API extensibility covers most use cases; plugin framework will expand options" }, { "id": "R-019", "requirement": "24/7 enterprise support with 1-hour critical response time", "category": "Support & SLA", "priority": "must-have", "coverage_status": "full", "coverage_score": 1.0, "weight": 3.0, "weighted_score": 3.0, "max_weighted": 3.0, "effort_hours": 2, "notes": "Premium support tier includes 24/7 coverage with 30-min critical response SLA", "mitigation": "" }, { "id": "R-020", "requirement": "Dedicated customer success manager", "category": "Support & SLA", "priority": "should-have", "coverage_status": "full", "coverage_score": 1.0, "weight": 2.0, "weighted_score": 2.0, "max_weighted": 2.0, "effort_hours": 2, "notes": "Included in Enterprise tier", "mitigation": "" }, { "id": "R-021", "requirement": "On-premise deployment option", "category": "Deployment", "priority": "nice-to-have", "coverage_status": "gap", "coverage_score": 0.0, "weight": 1.0, "weighted_score": 0.0, "max_weighted": 1.0, "effort_hours": 80, "notes": "Cloud-only platform; no on-premise offering", "mitigation": "Position cloud-first architecture benefits; offer VPC deployment as alternative" } ] } FILE:sales-engineer/assets/poc_scorecard_template.md # POC Evaluation Scorecard ## Scorecard Information | Field | Value | |-------|-------| | POC Name | [POC Name] | | Customer | [Customer Name] | | Vendor/Product | [Product Name] | | Evaluation Period | [Start Date] - [End Date] | | Evaluated By | [Names and Roles] | | Date Completed | [Date] | --- ## Scoring Scale | Score | Label | Definition | |-------|-------|------------| | 5 | Exceeds | Superior capability; exceeds requirements with notable strengths | | 4 | Meets | Full capability; meets all requirements with no significant gaps | | 3 | Partial | Acceptable capability; minor gaps that can be addressed | | 2 | Below | Below expectations; significant gaps that impact value | | 1 | Fails | Does not meet requirements; critical gaps | | N/A | Not Evaluated | Not tested during this POC | --- ## Evaluation Categories ### 1. Functionality (Weight: 30%) | Criterion | Score (1-5) | Evidence / Notes | |-----------|-------------|-----------------| | Core feature completeness | | | | Use case coverage | | | | Customization flexibility | | | | Workflow automation | | | | Data handling and transformation | | | | Reporting and analytics | | | **Category Score:** ___/5.0 **Category Notes:** [Summary of functionality evaluation, key strengths and gaps] --- ### 2. Performance (Weight: 20%) | Criterion | Score (1-5) | Evidence / Notes | |-----------|-------------|-----------------| | Response time under expected load | | | | Response time under peak load | | | | Throughput capacity | | | | Scalability characteristics | | | | Resource utilization | | | | Batch processing performance | | | **Category Score:** ___/5.0 **Category Notes:** [Summary of performance evaluation, benchmark results] --- ### 3. Integration (Weight: 20%) | Criterion | Score (1-5) | Evidence / Notes | |-----------|-------------|-----------------| | API completeness and documentation | | | | Data migration ease | | | | Third-party connector availability | | | | Authentication/SSO integration | | | | Real-time sync reliability | | | | Error handling and recovery | | | **Category Score:** ___/5.0 **Category Notes:** [Summary of integration evaluation, systems tested] --- ### 4. Usability (Weight: 15%) | Criterion | Score (1-5) | Evidence / Notes | |-----------|-------------|-----------------| | User interface intuitiveness | | | | Learning curve assessment | | | | Documentation quality | | | | Admin console functionality | | | | Mobile experience | | | | Accessibility compliance | | | **Category Score:** ___/5.0 **Category Notes:** [Summary of usability evaluation, user feedback] --- ### 5. Support (Weight: 15%) | Criterion | Score (1-5) | Evidence / Notes | |-----------|-------------|-----------------| | Technical support responsiveness | | | | Knowledge base quality | | | | Training resources availability | | | | Community and ecosystem | | | | Issue resolution speed | | | | Proactive engagement quality | | | **Category Score:** ___/5.0 **Category Notes:** [Summary of support evaluation during POC] --- ## Score Summary | Category | Weight | Score | Weighted Score | |----------|--------|-------|----------------| | Functionality | 30% | ___/5.0 | ___ | | Performance | 20% | ___/5.0 | ___ | | Integration | 20% | ___/5.0 | ___ | | Usability | 15% | ___/5.0 | ___ | | Support | 15% | ___/5.0 | ___ | | **Overall** | **100%** | | **___/5.0** | ### Decision Thresholds | Weighted Average | Decision | |-----------------|----------| | >= 4.0 | **Strong Pass** - Proceed to procurement | | 3.5 - 3.9 | **Pass** - Proceed with noted conditions | | 3.0 - 3.4 | **Conditional** - Requires further evaluation | | < 3.0 | **Fail** - Does not meet requirements | --- ## Success Criteria Results | # | Criterion | Priority | Target | Actual | Pass/Fail | |---|-----------|----------|--------|--------|-----------| | 1 | [Criterion 1] | Must-Have | [Target] | [Result] | [ ] | | 2 | [Criterion 2] | Must-Have | [Target] | [Result] | [ ] | | 3 | [Criterion 3] | Must-Have | [Target] | [Result] | [ ] | | 4 | [Criterion 4] | Should-Have | [Target] | [Result] | [ ] | | 5 | [Criterion 5] | Should-Have | [Target] | [Result] | [ ] | | 6 | [Criterion 6] | Nice-to-Have | [Target] | [Result] | [ ] | **Must-Have Pass Rate:** ___/% **Overall Pass Rate:** ___/% --- ## Issues Log | # | Issue | Severity | Status | Resolution | Impact on Score | |---|-------|----------|--------|------------|----------------| | 1 | [Issue] | [Critical/High/Medium/Low] | [Open/Resolved] | [Resolution] | [Category affected] | | 2 | [Issue] | [Critical/High/Medium/Low] | [Open/Resolved] | [Resolution] | [Category affected] | --- ## Stakeholder Feedback ### [Stakeholder Name 1] - [Role] **Rating:** ___/5 **Comments:** [Feedback] ### [Stakeholder Name 2] - [Role] **Rating:** ___/5 **Comments:** [Feedback] ### [Stakeholder Name 3] - [Role] **Rating:** ___/5 **Comments:** [Feedback] --- ## Recommendation ### Decision: [ ] GO / [ ] CONDITIONAL GO / [ ] NO-GO **Rationale:** [2-3 paragraphs explaining the recommendation based on scorecard results, success criteria outcomes, stakeholder feedback, and overall evaluation] **Conditions (if Conditional GO):** 1. [Condition 1 that must be met before proceeding] 2. [Condition 2 that must be met before proceeding] **Key Strengths:** 1. [Strength 1] 2. [Strength 2] 3. [Strength 3] **Key Concerns:** 1. [Concern 1 with proposed mitigation] 2. [Concern 2 with proposed mitigation] **Next Steps:** 1. [Action item] - [Owner] - [Date] 2. [Action item] - [Owner] - [Date] 3. [Action item] - [Owner] - [Date] --- ## Sign-Off | Role | Name | Signature | Date | |------|------|-----------|------| | Technical Evaluator | | | | | Business Sponsor | | | | | Decision Maker | | | | | Sales Engineer | | | | FILE:sales-engineer/assets/sample_rfp_data.json { "rfp_name": "Enterprise Data Analytics Platform RFP", "customer": "Acme Financial Services", "due_date": "2026-03-15", "deal_value": "$450,000 ARR", "strategic_value": "high", "requirements": [ { "id": "R-001", "requirement": "Real-time data ingestion from multiple sources (APIs, databases, streaming)", "category": "Data Integration", "priority": "must-have", "coverage_status": "full", "effort_hours": 8, "notes": "Native connectors for 200+ data sources", "mitigation": "" }, { "id": "R-002", "requirement": "Support for SQL and NoSQL data sources", "category": "Data Integration", "priority": "must-have", "coverage_status": "full", "effort_hours": 4, "notes": "Supports PostgreSQL, MySQL, MongoDB, Cassandra, and more", "mitigation": "" }, { "id": "R-003", "requirement": "Automated ETL pipeline creation with visual designer", "category": "Data Integration", "priority": "should-have", "coverage_status": "full", "effort_hours": 6, "notes": "Drag-and-drop pipeline builder included", "mitigation": "" }, { "id": "R-004", "requirement": "Change data capture (CDC) for real-time sync", "category": "Data Integration", "priority": "should-have", "coverage_status": "partial", "effort_hours": 16, "notes": "CDC supported for major databases; some require custom configuration", "mitigation": "Document supported CDC sources; provide configuration guide for non-standard sources" }, { "id": "R-005", "requirement": "Interactive dashboard creation with drag-and-drop", "category": "Analytics & Visualization", "priority": "must-have", "coverage_status": "full", "effort_hours": 4, "notes": "Full drag-and-drop dashboard builder with 50+ chart types", "mitigation": "" }, { "id": "R-006", "requirement": "Embedded analytics with white-labeling support", "category": "Analytics & Visualization", "priority": "must-have", "coverage_status": "full", "effort_hours": 8, "notes": "Full embedding SDK with CSS customization", "mitigation": "" }, { "id": "R-007", "requirement": "Natural language query interface for business users", "category": "Analytics & Visualization", "priority": "should-have", "coverage_status": "planned", "effort_hours": 24, "notes": "NLQ feature on roadmap for Q3 2026", "mitigation": "Share roadmap timeline; offer guided query builder as interim solution" }, { "id": "R-008", "requirement": "Predictive analytics and ML model integration", "category": "Analytics & Visualization", "priority": "nice-to-have", "coverage_status": "partial", "effort_hours": 20, "notes": "Python/R integration available; no built-in ML models", "mitigation": "Demonstrate Python integration for custom models; provide example notebooks" }, { "id": "R-009", "requirement": "Role-based access control (RBAC) with row-level security", "category": "Security & Compliance", "priority": "must-have", "coverage_status": "full", "effort_hours": 6, "notes": "Granular RBAC with row-level and column-level security", "mitigation": "" }, { "id": "R-010", "requirement": "SOC 2 Type II certification", "category": "Security & Compliance", "priority": "must-have", "coverage_status": "full", "effort_hours": 2, "notes": "Current SOC 2 Type II report available upon NDA", "mitigation": "" }, { "id": "R-011", "requirement": "Data encryption at rest and in transit (AES-256, TLS 1.3)", "category": "Security & Compliance", "priority": "must-have", "coverage_status": "full", "effort_hours": 2, "notes": "AES-256 at rest, TLS 1.3 in transit, customer-managed keys supported", "mitigation": "" }, { "id": "R-012", "requirement": "HIPAA compliance for healthcare data handling", "category": "Security & Compliance", "priority": "should-have", "coverage_status": "gap", "effort_hours": 40, "notes": "HIPAA BAA not currently offered", "mitigation": "Evaluate HIPAA certification timeline with compliance team; consider data masking as interim" }, { "id": "R-013", "requirement": "Horizontal scaling to handle 10B+ rows", "category": "Performance & Scalability", "priority": "must-have", "coverage_status": "full", "effort_hours": 8, "notes": "Distributed query engine scales to 50B+ rows", "mitigation": "" }, { "id": "R-014", "requirement": "Sub-second query response for cached dashboards", "category": "Performance & Scalability", "priority": "must-have", "coverage_status": "full", "effort_hours": 4, "notes": "Intelligent caching layer with <500ms p95 for cached queries", "mitigation": "" }, { "id": "R-015", "requirement": "Multi-region deployment with data residency controls", "category": "Performance & Scalability", "priority": "should-have", "coverage_status": "partial", "effort_hours": 20, "notes": "US and EU regions available; APAC region in beta", "mitigation": "Confirm customer region requirements; provide APAC beta access if needed" }, { "id": "R-016", "requirement": "RESTful API with comprehensive documentation", "category": "API & Extensibility", "priority": "must-have", "coverage_status": "full", "effort_hours": 4, "notes": "Full REST API with OpenAPI spec and interactive documentation", "mitigation": "" }, { "id": "R-017", "requirement": "Webhook support for event-driven workflows", "category": "API & Extensibility", "priority": "should-have", "coverage_status": "full", "effort_hours": 4, "notes": "Webhook support for 30+ event types", "mitigation": "" }, { "id": "R-018", "requirement": "Custom plugin/extension framework", "category": "API & Extensibility", "priority": "nice-to-have", "coverage_status": "planned", "effort_hours": 30, "notes": "Plugin framework on roadmap for Q4 2026", "mitigation": "Current API extensibility covers most use cases; plugin framework will expand options" }, { "id": "R-019", "requirement": "24/7 enterprise support with 1-hour critical response time", "category": "Support & SLA", "priority": "must-have", "coverage_status": "full", "effort_hours": 2, "notes": "Premium support tier includes 24/7 coverage with 30-min critical response SLA", "mitigation": "" }, { "id": "R-020", "requirement": "Dedicated customer success manager", "category": "Support & SLA", "priority": "should-have", "coverage_status": "full", "effort_hours": 2, "notes": "Included in Enterprise tier", "mitigation": "" }, { "id": "R-021", "requirement": "On-premise deployment option", "category": "Deployment", "priority": "nice-to-have", "coverage_status": "gap", "effort_hours": 80, "notes": "Cloud-only platform; no on-premise offering", "mitigation": "Position cloud-first architecture benefits; offer VPC deployment as alternative" } ] } FILE:sales-engineer/assets/technical_proposal_template.md # Technical Proposal Template ## Document Information | Field | Value | |-------|-------| | Customer | [Customer Name] | | Opportunity | [Opportunity Name / RFP Reference] | | Prepared By | [Sales Engineer Name] | | Date | [Date] | | Version | [Version Number] | | Classification | [Confidential / Internal] | --- ## 1. Executive Summary ### Business Context [2-3 paragraphs summarizing the customer's business challenges and strategic objectives that this solution addresses. Focus on business outcomes, not technical features.] ### Proposed Solution [1-2 paragraphs describing the solution at a high level, emphasizing how it addresses the specific challenges identified above.] ### Key Value Propositions 1. **[Value 1]:** [Quantified benefit, e.g., "Reduce reporting time by 60%"] 2. **[Value 2]:** [Quantified benefit] 3. **[Value 3]:** [Quantified benefit] ### Recommended Approach [Brief overview of the implementation approach, timeline, and key milestones.] --- ## 2. Requirements Summary ### Coverage Overview | Category | Requirements | Full | Partial | Planned | Gap | Coverage | |----------|-------------|------|---------|---------|-----|----------| | [Category 1] | [N] | [N] | [N] | [N] | [N] | [X%] | | [Category 2] | [N] | [N] | [N] | [N] | [N] | [X%] | | **Total** | **[N]** | **[N]** | **[N]** | **[N]** | **[N]** | **[X%]** | ### Key Differentiators 1. [Differentiator 1 with brief explanation] 2. [Differentiator 2 with brief explanation] 3. [Differentiator 3 with brief explanation] ### Gap Mitigation Plan | Gap | Priority | Mitigation Strategy | Timeline | |-----|----------|-------------------|----------| | [Gap 1] | [Must/Should/Nice] | [Strategy] | [Date] | | [Gap 2] | [Must/Should/Nice] | [Strategy] | [Date] | --- ## 3. Solution Architecture ### Architecture Overview [High-level architecture description. Include or reference an architecture diagram.] ``` [ASCII architecture diagram or reference to attached diagram] Example: +------------------+ +------------------+ +------------------+ | Data Sources | --> | Our Platform | --> | Delivery | | - System A | | - Ingestion | | - Dashboards | | - System B | | - Processing | | - API | | - System C | | - Analytics | | - Exports | +------------------+ +------------------+ +------------------+ | +------------------+ | Management | | - Security | | - Monitoring | | - Admin | +------------------+ ``` ### Component Details #### [Component 1] - **Purpose:** [What this component does] - **Technology:** [Underlying technology] - **Scaling:** [How it scales] - **Availability:** [HA/DR approach] #### [Component 2] - **Purpose:** [What this component does] - **Technology:** [Underlying technology] - **Scaling:** [How it scales] - **Availability:** [HA/DR approach] ### Integration Architecture | Integration Point | Protocol | Direction | Frequency | Authentication | |-------------------|----------|-----------|-----------|---------------| | [System A] | REST API | Inbound | Real-time | OAuth 2.0 | | [System B] | JDBC | Inbound | Batch (hourly) | Service Account | | [System C] | Webhook | Outbound | Event-driven | API Key | ### Security Architecture - **Authentication:** [SSO, SAML, OAuth, etc.] - **Authorization:** [RBAC, row-level security, etc.] - **Encryption:** [At rest, in transit, key management] - **Compliance:** [SOC 2, GDPR, HIPAA, etc.] - **Network:** [VPC, firewall, IP restrictions] --- ## 4. Implementation Plan ### Phase Overview | Phase | Duration | Focus | Deliverables | |-------|----------|-------|-------------| | Phase 1: Foundation | [X weeks] | Environment setup, core configuration | Working environment, admin access | | Phase 2: Core Implementation | [X weeks] | Primary use cases, integrations | [Deliverables] | | Phase 3: Advanced Features | [X weeks] | Advanced scenarios, optimization | [Deliverables] | | Phase 4: Go-Live | [X weeks] | Testing, training, cutover | Production deployment | ### Detailed Timeline ``` Week 1-2: [Phase 1 - Foundation] - Environment provisioning - Security configuration - Data source connectivity Week 3-6: [Phase 2 - Core Implementation] - Use case 1 implementation - Use case 2 implementation - Integration testing Week 7-8: [Phase 3 - Advanced Features] - Advanced analytics - Custom workflows - Performance optimization Week 9-10: [Phase 4 - Go-Live] - User acceptance testing - Training sessions - Production cutover - Post-launch support ``` ### Resource Requirements | Role | Hours | Phase(s) | Provider | |------|-------|----------|----------| | Solutions Architect | [X] | All | [Vendor] | | Implementation Engineer | [X] | 1-3 | [Vendor] | | Project Manager | [X] | All | [Vendor] | | Customer IT Admin | [X] | 1, 4 | [Customer] | | Customer Business Lead | [X] | 2-4 | [Customer] | ### Training Plan | Audience | Format | Duration | Content | |----------|--------|----------|---------| | Administrators | Workshop | [X hours] | Configuration, security, monitoring | | Power Users | Workshop | [X hours] | Advanced features, reporting, automation | | End Users | Webinar | [X hours] | Core workflows, self-service analytics | --- ## 5. Risk Mitigation | Risk | Probability | Impact | Mitigation | |------|------------|--------|------------| | [Risk 1] | [H/M/L] | [H/M/L] | [Strategy] | | [Risk 2] | [H/M/L] | [H/M/L] | [Strategy] | | [Risk 3] | [H/M/L] | [H/M/L] | [Strategy] | --- ## 6. Commercial Summary ### Pricing Overview | Component | Annual Cost | |-----------|------------| | Platform License | $[X] | | Implementation Services | $[X] | | Training | $[X] | | Premium Support | $[X] | | **Total Year 1** | **$[X]** | | **Annual Renewal** | **$[X]** | ### ROI Projection | Metric | Current State | With Solution | Improvement | |--------|--------------|---------------|-------------| | [Metric 1] | [Value] | [Value] | [%] | | [Metric 2] | [Value] | [Value] | [%] | | [Metric 3] | [Value] | [Value] | [%] | **Estimated payback period:** [X months] --- ## 7. Next Steps 1. [Next step 1 with owner and date] 2. [Next step 2 with owner and date] 3. [Next step 3 with owner and date] --- ## Appendices ### A. Detailed Compliance Matrix [Reference to full requirement-by-requirement response] ### B. Reference Customers [2-3 relevant customer references with industry, use case, and outcomes] ### C. Architecture Diagrams [Detailed architecture diagrams] ### D. Product Roadmap (Relevant Items) [Roadmap items relevant to this proposal with estimated delivery dates] FILE:sales-engineer/references/competitive-positioning-framework.md # Competitive Positioning Framework A comprehensive guide for Sales Engineers to analyze competitors, build battlecards, handle objections, and position for wins. ## Competitive Analysis Methodology ### 1. Intelligence Gathering **Primary Sources:** - Competitor product documentation and release notes - Analyst reports (Gartner, Forrester, IDC) - Customer feedback from win/loss reviews - Industry conferences and webinars - Public case studies and testimonials - Open-source repositories and API documentation **Secondary Sources:** - Glassdoor reviews (engineering culture, product direction) - Job postings (technology stack, expansion areas) - Patent filings (future direction signals) - Social media and community forums - Partner ecosystem announcements ### 2. Feature Comparison Best Practices **Feature Scoring Scale:** | Score | Label | Definition | |-------|-------|------------| | 3 | Full | Complete, production-ready feature support | | 2 | Partial | Feature exists but with limitations or caveats | | 1 | Limited | Minimal implementation, significant gaps | | 0 | None | Feature not available | **Comparison Categories:** Organize features into weighted categories that reflect customer priorities: | Category | Typical Weight | What to Evaluate | |----------|---------------|------------------| | Core Functionality | 25-35% | Primary use case coverage | | Integration & API | 15-25% | Ecosystem connectivity | | Security & Compliance | 15-20% | Enterprise readiness | | Scalability & Performance | 10-20% | Growth capacity | | Usability & UX | 10-15% | Time to value | | Support & Services | 5-10% | Vendor partnership quality | **Weighting Guidelines:** - Adjust weights based on the specific customer's priorities - Security-sensitive industries (healthcare, finance) should weight compliance higher - High-growth companies should weight scalability higher - Enterprise deals should weight integration and support higher ### 3. Differentiator Identification A differentiator is a feature or capability where your product scores highest among all compared products. Strong differentiators have these properties: - **Unique:** Only your product offers this capability - **Valuable:** Customers care about this capability - **Defensible:** Not easily replicated by competitors - **Demonstrable:** Can be shown in a demo or POC **Differentiator Categories:** | Type | Description | Example | |------|-------------|---------| | Feature Differentiator | Unique product capability | Native ML-powered anomaly detection | | Architecture Differentiator | Fundamental design advantage | Multi-tenant with data isolation | | Ecosystem Differentiator | Partner or integration advantage | 200+ native integrations | | Service Differentiator | Support or engagement model | Dedicated SE throughout contract | | Economic Differentiator | Pricing or TCO advantage | Usage-based pricing with no minimums | ### 4. Vulnerability Assessment Vulnerabilities are features where competitors score higher than your product. Address vulnerabilities proactively: **Vulnerability Response Strategies:** 1. **Acknowledge and redirect:** Confirm the gap, then pivot to your strength areas 2. **Reframe the requirement:** Show why the customer's real need is better met differently 3. **Demonstrate workaround:** Show how existing capabilities address the underlying need 4. **Commit to roadmap:** Provide a credible timeline for native support 5. **Partner solution:** Identify an integration partner that fills the gap ## Objection Handling ### Common Technical Objections #### "Your product lacks [Feature X]" **Response Framework:** 1. Acknowledge: "You're right that [Feature X] is not a standalone feature today." 2. Explore: "Help me understand the specific use case you need [Feature X] for." 3. Redirect: "Our approach to solving that is [alternative], which actually provides [benefit]." 4. Evidence: "Customer [reference] had the same concern and found [outcome]." #### "Competitor [Y] has better [Capability]" **Response Framework:** 1. Acknowledge: "I understand [Competitor Y] has invested in [Capability]." 2. Qualify: "Can you share what specific aspects of [Capability] are most important?" 3. Differentiate: "While they focus on [approach], we take a different approach with [our method] because [reason]." 4. Quantify: "The practical difference in real-world usage is [metric/evidence]." #### "Your product is too expensive" **Response Framework:** 1. Acknowledge: "I appreciate you sharing that concern." 2. Reframe: "Let's look at total cost of ownership rather than license cost alone." 3. Quantify: "When you factor in [implementation, training, maintenance, time-to-value], the TCO comparison shows..." 4. Value: "Based on our analysis, the ROI timeline is [X months], delivering [Y value]." #### "We're concerned about vendor lock-in" **Response Framework:** 1. Acknowledge: "That's a smart concern for any technology investment." 2. Evidence: "Our architecture uses [open standards, APIs, data portability features]." 3. Demonstrate: "Here's how data export and migration work [show the feature]." 4. Reference: "We can connect you with customers who evaluated this exact concern." ### Objection Handling Principles 1. **Never disparage competitors.** Focus on your strengths, not their weaknesses. 2. **Ask questions first.** Understand the real concern behind the objection. 3. **Use evidence.** Reference customers, benchmarks, and demonstrations. 4. **Be honest about gaps.** Credibility is your most valuable asset. 5. **Redirect to value.** Connect every response back to business outcomes. ## Win/Loss Analysis ### Post-Decision Review Process **Timing:** Conduct within 2 weeks of the decision for accurate recall. **Interview Questions (for wins):** 1. What was the deciding factor in choosing us? 2. Which features or capabilities were most compelling? 3. How did our demo/POC compare to alternatives? 4. What concerns did you have that were resolved during the process? 5. What could we have done better in the evaluation process? **Interview Questions (for losses):** 1. What was the primary reason for choosing the competitor? 2. Were there specific requirements we did not meet? 3. How did our demo/POC compare to the winning vendor? 4. What would have changed your decision? 5. Would you consider us for future evaluations? ### Win/Loss Data Tracking | Data Point | Purpose | |-----------|---------| | Deal size | Pattern analysis by segment | | Industry | Vertical-specific insights | | Competitor | Head-to-head record | | Decision factors | Feature priority validation | | Sales cycle length | Process efficiency | | Stakeholder roles | Engagement strategy | | Technical requirements | Capability gap tracking | | POC outcome | POC process improvement | ### Analysis Dimensions 1. **By Competitor:** Win rate per competitor, common objections, feature gaps 2. **By Segment:** Enterprise vs mid-market vs SMB patterns 3. **By Industry:** Vertical-specific win factors 4. **By Deal Size:** Large vs small deal dynamics 5. **By Feature Category:** Which capabilities drive wins vs losses ## Battlecard Creation ### Battlecard Structure **Page 1: Quick Reference** - Competitor overview (company size, funding, market position) - Key strengths (top 3) - Key weaknesses (top 3) - Ideal customer profile for the competitor - Our win rate against this competitor **Page 2: Feature Comparison** - Category-by-category comparison (summary view) - Top differentiators (features where we lead) - Top vulnerabilities (features where they lead) - Parity features (features at same level) **Page 3: Talk Track** - Opening positioning statement - Discovery questions that expose competitor weaknesses - Objection responses for their key strengths - Proof points (customer references, benchmarks, case studies) - Trap-setting questions for demos and POCs **Page 4: Win Strategies** - Recommended evaluation criteria that favor our strengths - Demo scenarios that highlight our differentiators - POC success criteria that align with our capabilities - Pricing and packaging positioning - Stakeholder engagement strategy ### Battlecard Maintenance - **Monthly review:** Update feature scores based on new releases - **Quarterly refresh:** Incorporate win/loss analysis findings - **Trigger-based update:** Major competitor release, pricing change, or acquisition ## Competitive Positioning During Evaluations ### Evaluation Stage Tactics | Stage | Tactic | |-------|--------| | Discovery | Ask questions that expose competitor weaknesses | | Demo | Lead with differentiators, show end-to-end workflows | | POC | Define success criteria aligned with your strengths | | Proposal | Quantify TCO advantage, emphasize implementation risk | | Negotiation | Leverage competitive urgency, offer migration assistance | ### Influencing Evaluation Criteria The sales engineer's most impactful opportunity is shaping the evaluation criteria before the formal process begins: 1. **Map criteria to strengths:** Propose evaluation categories where you excel 2. **Weight appropriately:** Ensure critical categories (where you lead) carry higher weight 3. **Define metrics:** Specific, measurable criteria favor the more capable product 4. **Include non-obvious criteria:** Total cost of ownership, time-to-value, ecosystem breadth --- **Last Updated:** February 2026 FILE:sales-engineer/references/poc-best-practices.md # Proof of Concept (POC) Best Practices A comprehensive guide for Sales Engineers planning, executing, and evaluating proof-of-concept engagements. ## POC Planning Methodology ### 1. Pre-POC Qualification Not every deal warrants a POC. Qualify before committing resources: **POC-Worthy Indicators:** - Deal value justifies 80-200+ hours of SE and engineering time - Customer has an identified champion who will actively participate - Clear decision timeline with POC as a defined evaluation step - Budget is allocated or allocation process is underway - Technical stakeholders are available for the evaluation period **POC Red Flags:** - "Free trial" request with no commitment to evaluate - No identified decision-maker or budget owner - Competitor has already been selected; POC is for validation only - Customer expects production-grade environment for extended period - No defined success criteria or evaluation framework ### 2. Scope Definition The most critical success factor is a well-defined scope. An uncontrolled scope leads to extended timelines, unmet expectations, and lost deals. **Scope Elements:** - **Use cases:** 3-5 specific scenarios to validate (not "everything") - **Integrations:** Which systems must connect during the POC - **Data:** What data will be used (sample, synthetic, production subset) - **Users:** Who will access the POC environment and in what roles - **Duration:** Fixed timeline with clear milestones - **Success criteria:** Measurable, objective criteria for each use case **Scope Control Tactics:** - Document scope in writing with customer sign-off - Define what is explicitly out of scope - Create a change request process for scope additions - Set a maximum number of use cases per complexity tier ### 3. Timeline Planning **Standard 5-Week Framework:** | Week | Phase | Focus | Key Activities | |------|-------|-------|---------------| | 1 | Setup | Foundation | Environment, data, access, kickoff | | 2-3 | Core Testing | Validation | Primary use cases, integrations, workflows | | 4 | Advanced Testing | Edge cases | Performance, security, scale, administration | | 5 | Evaluation | Decision | Scorecard, review, recommendation | **Timeline Adjustments by Complexity:** | Complexity | Duration | Use Cases | Integrations | |-----------|----------|-----------|-------------| | Low | 3 weeks | 2-3 | 0-1 | | Medium | 5 weeks | 3-5 | 2-3 | | High | 6-8 weeks | 5-8 | 4+ | **Timeline Rules:** - Never exceed 8 weeks. Longer POCs lose momentum and stakeholder attention. - Front-load the most impressive capabilities to build early momentum. - Schedule stakeholder checkpoints at the end of each phase. - Build 20% buffer into each phase for unexpected issues. ### 4. Resource Planning **SE Allocation:** | Activity | Hours/Week (Medium Complexity) | |----------|-------------------------------| | Environment setup and configuration | 15-20 (Week 1 only) | | Use case execution and testing | 20-25 | | Stakeholder communication | 3-5 | | Documentation and reporting | 3-5 | | Issue resolution | 5-8 | **Engineering Support:** - Allocate dedicated engineering support for complex integrations - Establish an escalation path for blocking issues - Pre-schedule engineering availability during Core Testing phase - Request customer IT support for integration access and credentials **Customer Resources:** - Technical sponsor for daily communication - Business stakeholders for use case validation - IT/Security for environment access and compliance review - End users for usability feedback (if applicable) ## Success Criteria Definition ### Writing Effective Success Criteria Each criterion must be: - **Specific:** Clearly defined with no ambiguity - **Measurable:** Quantifiable metric or clear pass/fail - **Agreed:** Documented and signed off by both parties - **Relevant:** Tied to a business outcome or technical requirement - **Time-bound:** Evaluated within the POC timeline ### Success Criteria Categories **Functionality Criteria:** - "System processes [X] transactions per hour without errors" - "Workflow automation reduces manual steps from [Y] to [Z]" - "Report generation completes within [N] seconds for [M] records" - "All [X] defined use cases completed successfully" **Performance Criteria:** - "API response time <200ms at p95 under [N] concurrent users" - "Batch processing completes [X] records in under [Y] minutes" - "System maintains performance with [N]x expected data volume" **Integration Criteria:** - "Bidirectional sync with [System X] operates within [Y] minute latency" - "SSO integration with [IdP] supports all required authentication flows" - "Data import from [Source] completes with <1% error rate" **Usability Criteria:** - "New users complete [task] within [N] minutes without assistance" - "Admin configuration for [scenario] requires fewer than [N] steps" - "Stakeholder satisfaction rating >= 4.0/5.0" ### Anti-Patterns in Success Criteria - **Too vague:** "System performs well" (what is "well"?) - **Too many:** More than 15 criteria dilutes focus and extends timeline - **Unmeasurable:** "Users like the interface" (how do you measure "like"?) - **Biased toward feature count:** "Must have Feature X" instead of "Must solve Problem Y" - **Moving target:** Criteria that change mid-POC without formal agreement ## Stakeholder Management ### Stakeholder Map | Role | Priority | Engagement Strategy | |------|----------|-------------------| | Decision Maker | High | Executive briefings, ROI summaries | | Champion | Critical | Daily communication, progress updates | | Technical Evaluator | High | Hands-on access, deep-dive sessions | | End User | Medium | Usability testing, feedback sessions | | IT/Security | High | Compliance reviews, architecture sessions | | Procurement | Low-Medium | TCO documentation, reference connections | ### Engagement Cadence - **Daily:** Champion check-in (10 min, Slack/email) - **Weekly:** Progress report to all stakeholders (written summary) - **Phase transitions:** Formal review meeting with demo of progress - **Final:** Executive presentation with scorecard results and recommendation ### Managing Stakeholder Expectations 1. **Set clear boundaries:** Define what will and will not be demonstrated 2. **Communicate early and often:** No surprises; surface issues immediately 3. **Document everything:** Meeting notes, decisions, change requests 4. **Celebrate wins:** Highlight successful milestones to maintain momentum 5. **Address concerns immediately:** Delays in resolution erode confidence ## Evaluation Frameworks ### Weighted Scorecard Model The evaluation scorecard provides an objective, comparable assessment: | Category | Weight | Score (1-5) | Weighted Score | |----------|--------|-------------|----------------| | Functionality | 30% | | | | Performance | 20% | | | | Integration | 20% | | | | Usability | 15% | | | | Support | 15% | | | | **Total** | **100%** | | | **Scoring Scale:** - 5: Exceeds requirements - superior capability demonstrated - 4: Meets requirements - full capability with minor enhancements possible - 3: Partially meets - acceptable but notable gaps remain - 2: Below expectations - significant gaps that impact value - 1: Does not meet - critical failure for this category **Decision Thresholds:** - Weighted average >= 4.0: **Strong Pass** - proceed to procurement - Weighted average 3.5-3.9: **Pass** - proceed with noted conditions - Weighted average 3.0-3.4: **Conditional** - requires further evaluation or negotiation - Weighted average < 3.0: **Fail** - does not meet requirements ### Go/No-Go Decision Framework The go/no-go decision should be based on multiple factors, not just the scorecard: **Go Indicators:** - Scorecard score >= 3.5 - All must-have success criteria met - Champion and decision-maker both express positive sentiment - No unresolved critical technical blockers - Clear implementation path identified **No-Go Indicators:** - Scorecard score < 3.0 - Critical success criteria failed without clear resolution - Decision-maker expresses significant concerns - Multiple unresolved technical blockers - Competitive alternative clearly preferred by evaluators **Conditional Go Indicators:** - Scorecard score 3.0-3.5 with clear path to improvement - 1-2 minor success criteria not met but with workarounds - Mixed stakeholder sentiment that can be addressed - Blockers identified but resolution path confirmed with engineering ## Common POC Failure Modes ### 1. Scope Creep **Symptom:** Customer continuously adds requirements during the POC. **Prevention:** Written scope agreement with change request process. **Recovery:** Renegotiate timeline or defer additions to Phase 2. ### 2. Champion Absence **Symptom:** Champion becomes unavailable or disengaged mid-POC. **Prevention:** Identify a backup champion. Schedule regular touchpoints. **Recovery:** Escalate to decision-maker. Demonstrate value already achieved. ### 3. Data Issues **Symptom:** Customer data is unavailable, poor quality, or incompatible. **Prevention:** Request sample data before kickoff. Prepare synthetic data. **Recovery:** Use synthetic data for core testing. Document data requirements for implementation. ### 4. Environment Problems **Symptom:** POC environment is unstable, slow, or inaccessible. **Prevention:** Use a dedicated, pre-configured environment. Test before kickoff. **Recovery:** Have a backup environment. Communicate honestly about delays. ### 5. Moving Goalposts **Symptom:** Evaluation criteria change mid-POC, often influenced by competitor demos. **Prevention:** Get written sign-off on criteria before starting. Reference agreement when changes arise. **Recovery:** Agree to evaluate new criteria as addendum, not replacement. Highlight what has already been validated. ### 6. Extended Timeline **Symptom:** POC drags beyond planned duration without clear progress. **Prevention:** Set hard deadlines in the agreement. Schedule decision meetings in advance. **Recovery:** Force a checkpoint. Present results to date and ask for a go/no-go with current evidence. ### 7. Technical Blockers **Symptom:** Unexpected technical issues prevent completion of key use cases. **Prevention:** Conduct technical discovery before committing to POC. Have engineering on standby. **Recovery:** Escalate immediately. Provide transparent status updates. Offer alternative approaches. ## POC Documentation ### Required Artifacts | Document | When | Owner | |----------|------|-------| | Scope agreement | Pre-POC | SE + Customer | | Environment setup guide | Week 1 | SE | | Progress reports | Weekly | SE | | Phase review presentations | Phase transitions | SE | | Issue log | Ongoing | SE | | Final evaluation report | Week 5 | SE + Customer | | Lessons learned | Post-POC | SE | ### Final Report Template 1. **Executive Summary** - POC objectives, approach, and outcome 2. **Scope and Success Criteria** - What was tested and how 3. **Results Summary** - Success criteria outcomes with evidence 4. **Evaluation Scorecard** - Weighted scores across all categories 5. **Issues and Resolutions** - Problems encountered and how they were addressed 6. **Recommendation** - Go/No-Go with rationale 7. **Implementation Considerations** - Next steps, timeline, and resource needs --- **Last Updated:** February 2026 FILE:sales-engineer/references/rfp-response-guide.md # RFP/RFI Response Guide A comprehensive reference for Sales Engineers responding to Requests for Proposal (RFP) and Requests for Information (RFI). ## RFP Response Best Practices ### 1. Pre-Response Assessment Before investing time in a response, conduct a thorough bid/no-bid assessment: **Bid Criteria Checklist:** - Do we have a pre-existing relationship with the customer? - Is there an identified champion or sponsor? - Do our capabilities align with >70% of requirements? - Is the deal size justified against the response effort? - Do we understand the competitive landscape? - Is the timeline realistic for our solution? **Red Flags for No-Bid:** - No prior customer engagement (blind RFP) - Requirement language mirrors a competitor's product - Timeline is unrealistically short - Must-have requirements fall outside our platform - Budget is undefined or misaligned with our pricing ### 2. Response Organization **Executive Summary (1-2 pages):** - Lead with business outcomes, not features - Reference the customer's specific challenges - Quantify value proposition with relevant metrics - State confidence level and key differentiators **Solution Overview:** - Map directly to the customer's stated requirements - Use the customer's language and terminology - Include architecture diagrams for technical sections - Address integration with existing systems **Compliance Matrix:** - Mirror the RFP's requirement numbering exactly - Use consistent coverage categories: Full, Partial, Planned, Gap - Provide clear explanations for each response - Include roadmap dates for "Planned" items ### 3. Coverage Classification | Status | Score | Definition | Response Approach | |--------|-------|------------|-------------------| | Full | 100% | Current product fully meets requirement | Describe capability with evidence | | Partial | 50% | Met with configuration or workaround | Explain approach and any limitations | | Planned | 25% | On product roadmap | Provide timeline and interim solution | | Gap | 0% | Not currently supported | Acknowledge gap and propose alternatives | ### 4. Priority-Weighted Scoring Not all requirements are equal. Weight them by business impact: - **Must-Have (3x weight):** Core requirements that are deal-breakers. Gaps here typically result in disqualification. - **Should-Have (2x weight):** Important requirements that influence the decision significantly. - **Nice-to-Have (1x weight):** Desirable but not critical. Often used as tie-breakers. ### 5. Response Writing Tips **Do:** - Answer the question directly before elaborating - Use the customer's terminology, not internal jargon - Provide specific examples, case studies, and metrics - Include screenshots or architecture diagrams where relevant - Cross-reference related answers to avoid redundancy - Proofread for consistency across sections (multiple authors) **Avoid:** - Marketing fluff or vague language ("best-in-class", "world-class") - Answering a question you were not asked - Contradictions between sections - Overselling capabilities you do not have - Ignoring the question format (tables vs. narrative) ## Bid/No-Bid Decision Framework ### Decision Matrix | Factor | Weight | Score (1-5) | Weighted | |--------|--------|-------------|----------| | Technical fit | 25% | | | | Relationship strength | 20% | | | | Competitive position | 20% | | | | Deal value vs effort | 15% | | | | Strategic importance | 10% | | | | Win probability | 10% | | | | **Total** | **100%** | | | **Scoring Guide:** - 5: Strong advantage - 4: Slight advantage - 3: Neutral / competitive parity - 2: Slight disadvantage - 1: Significant disadvantage **Decision Thresholds:** - Score >= 3.5: **Bid** - proceed with full response - Score 2.5 - 3.4: **Conditional Bid** - proceed with executive approval - Score < 2.5: **No-Bid** - decline or submit information-only response ### Effort Estimation Estimate the total effort required and compare against deal value: | Response Component | Typical Effort (hours) | |-------------------|----------------------| | Requirements analysis | 4-8 | | Technical writing | 16-40 | | Architecture diagrams | 4-8 | | Demo preparation | 8-16 | | Internal review | 4-8 | | Final formatting | 2-4 | | **Total** | **38-84 hours** | **Rule of thumb:** The response effort should not exceed 2% of the deal value. ## Compliance Matrix Structure ### Standard Format ``` | Req ID | Requirement Description | Priority | Compliance | Response | Evidence | |--------|------------------------|----------|------------|----------|----------| | R-001 | SSO via SAML 2.0 | Must | Full | Native SAML 2.0 support... | Config guide | | R-002 | Custom reporting | Should | Partial | Standard reports + API... | API docs | ``` ### Section Organization Organize requirements by category for clarity: 1. **Functional Requirements** - Core features and capabilities 2. **Technical Requirements** - Architecture, APIs, performance 3. **Security & Compliance** - Authentication, encryption, certifications 4. **Integration Requirements** - Third-party systems, data flows 5. **Support & SLA** - Support tiers, response times, uptime 6. **Vendor Qualifications** - Company size, financials, references ## Common Pitfalls ### 1. The Wired RFP **Symptom:** Requirements language matches a competitor's product feature list. **Response:** Focus on outcomes over features. Highlight areas of differentiation. Ask clarifying questions that expose broader needs. ### 2. Feature Checklist Syndrome **Symptom:** RFP is a massive feature checklist with no context about business problems. **Response:** Group features by business outcome. Add context in your response that demonstrates understanding of the underlying need. ### 3. Scope Creep in Response **Symptom:** Team keeps adding content that was not requested. **Response:** Assign a response manager to enforce scope. Answer what was asked, provide references for additional information. ### 4. Inconsistent Messaging **Symptom:** Multiple authors provide contradictory information. **Response:** Assign a single editor for final review. Create a response style guide. Use consistent terminology throughout. ### 5. Overcommitting on Gaps **Symptom:** Marking "Planned" items as "Full" to improve scores. **Response:** Never misrepresent coverage. Planned items with firm timelines and interim workarounds are better than lies discovered during POC. ## RFP Response Timeline Management ### Typical Response Timeline | Day | Activity | |-----|----------| | Day 1 | Receive RFP, conduct initial review, assign team | | Day 2-3 | Bid/no-bid decision, questions submission | | Day 4-7 | Requirements analysis, coverage assessment | | Day 8-14 | Draft responses, architecture diagrams | | Day 15-17 | Internal review, quality check | | Day 18-19 | Final edits, formatting, executive review | | Day 20 | Submission | ### Time-Saving Strategies 1. **Maintain a response library** - Reusable answers for common requirements 2. **Pre-built architecture diagrams** - Template diagrams for common integration patterns 3. **Standardized compliance language** - Pre-approved language for security and compliance sections 4. **Question templates** - Standard clarifying questions for common ambiguities --- **Last Updated:** February 2026 FILE:sales-engineer/scripts/competitive_matrix_builder.py #!/usr/bin/env python3 """Competitive Matrix Builder - Generate feature comparison matrices and positioning analysis. Builds feature-by-feature comparison matrices, calculates weighted competitive scores, identifies differentiators and vulnerabilities, and generates win themes. Usage: python competitive_matrix_builder.py competitive_data.json python competitive_matrix_builder.py competitive_data.json --format json python competitive_matrix_builder.py competitive_data.json --format text """ import argparse import json import sys from typing import Any # Feature scoring levels FEATURE_SCORES: dict[str, int] = { "full": 3, "partial": 2, "limited": 1, "none": 0, } FEATURE_LABELS: dict[int, str] = { 3: "Full", 2: "Partial", 1: "Limited", 0: "None", } def safe_divide(numerator: float, denominator: float, default: float = 0.0) -> float: """Safely divide two numbers, returning default if denominator is zero.""" if denominator == 0: return default return numerator / denominator def load_competitive_data(filepath: str) -> dict[str, Any]: """Load and validate competitive data from a JSON file. Args: filepath: Path to the JSON file containing competitive data. Returns: Parsed competitive data dictionary. Raises: SystemExit: If the file cannot be read or parsed. """ try: with open(filepath, "r", encoding="utf-8") as f: data = json.load(f) except FileNotFoundError: print(f"Error: File not found: {filepath}", file=sys.stderr) sys.exit(1) except json.JSONDecodeError as e: print(f"Error: Invalid JSON in {filepath}: {e}", file=sys.stderr) sys.exit(1) if "categories" not in data: print("Error: JSON must contain a 'categories' array.", file=sys.stderr) sys.exit(1) if "our_product" not in data: print("Error: JSON must contain 'our_product' name.", file=sys.stderr) sys.exit(1) if "competitors" not in data or not data["competitors"]: print("Error: JSON must contain a non-empty 'competitors' array.", file=sys.stderr) sys.exit(1) return data def normalize_score(score_value: Any) -> int: """Normalize a score value to an integer. Args: score_value: Score as string label or integer. Returns: Normalized integer score (0-3). """ if isinstance(score_value, str): return FEATURE_SCORES.get(score_value.lower(), 0) if isinstance(score_value, (int, float)): return max(0, min(3, int(score_value))) return 0 def build_comparison_matrix(data: dict[str, Any]) -> dict[str, Any]: """Build the feature comparison matrix from input data. Args: data: Competitive data with categories, features, and scores. Returns: Comparison matrix with per-feature and per-category scores. """ our_product = data["our_product"] competitors = data["competitors"] all_products = [our_product] + competitors matrix: list[dict[str, Any]] = [] category_summaries: dict[str, dict[str, Any]] = {} for category in data["categories"]: cat_name = category["name"] cat_weight = category.get("weight", 1.0) cat_features = category.get("features", []) cat_scores: dict[str, list[int]] = {p: [] for p in all_products} for feature in cat_features: feature_name = feature["name"] scores: dict[str, int] = {} for product in all_products: raw_score = feature.get("scores", {}).get(product, 0) scores[product] = normalize_score(raw_score) cat_scores[product].append(scores[product]) # Determine leader for this feature max_score = max(scores.values()) leaders = [p for p, s in scores.items() if s == max_score] matrix.append({ "category": cat_name, "feature": feature_name, "scores": scores, "leaders": leaders, "our_score": scores[our_product], "max_score": max_score, "we_lead": our_product in leaders and len(leaders) == 1, "we_trail": scores[our_product] < max_score, }) # Category summary cat_product_scores = {} for product in all_products: product_scores = cat_scores[product] total = sum(product_scores) max_possible = len(product_scores) * 3 pct = safe_divide(total, max_possible) * 100 cat_product_scores[product] = { "total_score": total, "max_possible": max_possible, "percentage": round(pct, 1), } category_summaries[cat_name] = { "weight": cat_weight, "feature_count": len(cat_features), "product_scores": cat_product_scores, } return { "our_product": our_product, "competitors": competitors, "all_products": all_products, "matrix": matrix, "category_summaries": category_summaries, } def compute_competitive_scores( comparison: dict[str, Any], ) -> dict[str, dict[str, Any]]: """Compute weighted competitive scores for each product. Args: comparison: Comparison matrix data. Returns: Product scores with weighted and unweighted totals. """ all_products = comparison["all_products"] category_summaries = comparison["category_summaries"] product_scores: dict[str, dict[str, float]] = { p: {"weighted_total": 0.0, "max_weighted": 0.0, "unweighted_total": 0, "max_unweighted": 0} for p in all_products } for cat_name, cat_data in category_summaries.items(): weight = cat_data["weight"] for product in all_products: p_data = cat_data["product_scores"][product] product_scores[product]["weighted_total"] += p_data["total_score"] * weight product_scores[product]["max_weighted"] += p_data["max_possible"] * weight product_scores[product]["unweighted_total"] += p_data["total_score"] product_scores[product]["max_unweighted"] += p_data["max_possible"] result = {} for product in all_products: ps = product_scores[product] weighted_pct = safe_divide(ps["weighted_total"], ps["max_weighted"]) * 100 unweighted_pct = safe_divide(ps["unweighted_total"], ps["max_unweighted"]) * 100 result[product] = { "weighted_score": round(weighted_pct, 1), "unweighted_score": round(unweighted_pct, 1), "weighted_total": round(ps["weighted_total"], 2), "max_weighted": round(ps["max_weighted"], 2), } return result def identify_differentiators(comparison: dict[str, Any]) -> list[dict[str, Any]]: """Identify features where our product leads all competitors. Args: comparison: Comparison matrix data. Returns: List of differentiator features with details. """ differentiators = [] for entry in comparison["matrix"]: if entry["we_lead"] and entry["our_score"] >= 2: # Calculate gap from nearest competitor competitor_scores = [ entry["scores"][c] for c in comparison["competitors"] ] max_competitor = max(competitor_scores) if competitor_scores else 0 gap = entry["our_score"] - max_competitor differentiators.append({ "feature": entry["feature"], "category": entry["category"], "our_score": entry["our_score"], "our_label": FEATURE_LABELS.get(entry["our_score"], "Unknown"), "best_competitor_score": max_competitor, "gap": gap, }) # Sort by gap size descending differentiators.sort(key=lambda d: d["gap"], reverse=True) return differentiators def identify_vulnerabilities(comparison: dict[str, Any]) -> list[dict[str, Any]]: """Identify features where competitors lead our product. Args: comparison: Comparison matrix data. Returns: List of vulnerability features with details. """ vulnerabilities = [] for entry in comparison["matrix"]: if entry["we_trail"]: # Find which competitor leads leader_scores = { p: entry["scores"][p] for p in comparison["competitors"] if entry["scores"][p] == entry["max_score"] } gap = entry["max_score"] - entry["our_score"] vulnerabilities.append({ "feature": entry["feature"], "category": entry["category"], "our_score": entry["our_score"], "our_label": FEATURE_LABELS.get(entry["our_score"], "Unknown"), "leading_competitors": leader_scores, "gap": gap, }) # Sort by gap size descending vulnerabilities.sort(key=lambda v: v["gap"], reverse=True) return vulnerabilities def generate_win_themes( differentiators: list[dict[str, Any]], competitive_scores: dict[str, dict[str, Any]], our_product: str, ) -> list[str]: """Generate win themes based on differentiators and competitive position. Args: differentiators: List of differentiator features. competitive_scores: Product competitive scores. our_product: Our product name. Returns: List of win theme strings. """ themes = [] # Theme from top differentiators if differentiators: top_diff_categories = list({d["category"] for d in differentiators[:5]}) for cat in top_diff_categories[:3]: cat_diffs = [d for d in differentiators if d["category"] == cat] feature_names = [d["feature"] for d in cat_diffs[:3]] themes.append( f"Superior {cat} capabilities: {', '.join(feature_names)}" ) # Theme from overall competitive position our_score = competitive_scores.get(our_product, {}).get("weighted_score", 0) competitor_scores = [ (p, s["weighted_score"]) for p, s in competitive_scores.items() if p != our_product ] if competitor_scores: best_competitor_name, best_competitor_score = max( competitor_scores, key=lambda x: x[1] ) if our_score > best_competitor_score: themes.append( f"Overall strongest solution ({our_score:.1f}% vs {best_competitor_name} at {best_competitor_score:.1f}%)" ) # Theme from breadth of coverage strong_diffs = [d for d in differentiators if d["gap"] >= 2] if len(strong_diffs) >= 3: themes.append( f"Clear technical leadership across {len(strong_diffs)} key features with significant competitive gaps" ) if not themes: themes.append("Competitive parity - emphasize implementation quality, support, and total cost of ownership") return themes def analyze_competitive(data: dict[str, Any]) -> dict[str, Any]: """Run the complete competitive analysis pipeline. Args: data: Parsed competitive data dictionary. Returns: Complete analysis results dictionary. """ comparison = build_comparison_matrix(data) competitive_scores = compute_competitive_scores(comparison) differentiators = identify_differentiators(comparison) vulnerabilities = identify_vulnerabilities(comparison) win_themes = generate_win_themes( differentiators, competitive_scores, comparison["our_product"] ) return { "analysis_info": { "our_product": comparison["our_product"], "competitors": comparison["competitors"], "total_features": len(comparison["matrix"]), "total_categories": len(comparison["category_summaries"]), }, "competitive_scores": competitive_scores, "category_breakdown": comparison["category_summaries"], "comparison_matrix": comparison["matrix"], "differentiators": differentiators, "vulnerabilities": vulnerabilities, "win_themes": win_themes, } def format_text(result: dict[str, Any]) -> str: """Format analysis results as human-readable text. Args: result: Complete analysis results dictionary. Returns: Formatted text string. """ lines = [] info = result["analysis_info"] all_products = [info["our_product"]] + info["competitors"] lines.append("=" * 80) lines.append("COMPETITIVE MATRIX ANALYSIS") lines.append("=" * 80) lines.append(f"Our Product: {info['our_product']}") lines.append(f"Competitors: {', '.join(info['competitors'])}") lines.append(f"Features: {info['total_features']}") lines.append(f"Categories: {info['total_categories']}") lines.append("") # Competitive scores lines.append("-" * 80) lines.append("COMPETITIVE SCORES") lines.append("-" * 80) lines.append(f"{'Product':<25} {'Weighted':>10} {'Unweighted':>12}") lines.append("-" * 80) # Sort by weighted score descending sorted_scores = sorted( result["competitive_scores"].items(), key=lambda x: x[1]["weighted_score"], reverse=True, ) for product, scores in sorted_scores: marker = " <-- US" if product == info["our_product"] else "" lines.append( f"{product:<25} {scores['weighted_score']:>9.1f}% {scores['unweighted_score']:>11.1f}%{marker}" ) lines.append("") # Feature matrix lines.append("-" * 80) lines.append("FEATURE COMPARISON MATRIX") lines.append("-" * 80) # Build header product_cols = " ".join(f"{p[:10]:>10}" for p in all_products) lines.append(f"{'Feature':<30} {product_cols}") lines.append("-" * 80) current_category = "" for entry in result["comparison_matrix"]: if entry["category"] != current_category: current_category = entry["category"] cat_data = result["category_breakdown"].get(current_category, {}) weight = cat_data.get("weight", 1.0) lines.append(f"\n [{current_category}] (weight: {weight}x)") score_cols = " ".join( f"{FEATURE_LABELS.get(entry['scores'].get(p, 0), 'N/A'):>10}" for p in all_products ) lead_marker = " *" if entry["we_lead"] else (" !" if entry["we_trail"] else "") feature_display = entry["feature"][:28] lines.append(f" {feature_display:<28} {score_cols}{lead_marker}") lines.append("") lines.append(" * = We lead | ! = We trail") lines.append("") # Differentiators diffs = result["differentiators"] if diffs: lines.append("-" * 80) lines.append(f"DIFFERENTIATORS ({len(diffs)} features where we lead)") lines.append("-" * 80) for d in diffs: lines.append( f" + {d['feature']} [{d['category']}] " f"- Us: {d['our_label']} vs Best Competitor: {FEATURE_LABELS.get(d['best_competitor_score'], 'N/A')} " f"(gap: +{d['gap']})" ) lines.append("") # Vulnerabilities vulns = result["vulnerabilities"] if vulns: lines.append("-" * 80) lines.append(f"VULNERABILITIES ({len(vulns)} features where competitors lead)") lines.append("-" * 80) for v in vulns: leaders = ", ".join( f"{p}: {FEATURE_LABELS.get(s, 'N/A')}" for p, s in v["leading_competitors"].items() ) lines.append( f" - {v['feature']} [{v['category']}] " f"- Us: {v['our_label']} vs {leaders} " f"(gap: -{v['gap']})" ) lines.append("") # Win themes themes = result["win_themes"] lines.append("-" * 80) lines.append("WIN THEMES") lines.append("-" * 80) for i, theme in enumerate(themes, 1): lines.append(f" {i}. {theme}") lines.append("") lines.append("=" * 80) return "\n".join(lines) def main() -> None: """Main entry point for the Competitive Matrix Builder.""" parser = argparse.ArgumentParser( description="Build competitive feature comparison matrices and positioning analysis.", formatter_class=argparse.RawDescriptionHelpFormatter, epilog=( "Feature Scoring:\n" " Full (3) - Complete feature support\n" " Partial (2) - Partial or limited support\n" " Limited (1) - Minimal or basic support\n" " None (0) - Feature not available\n" "\n" "Example:\n" " python competitive_matrix_builder.py competitive_data.json --format json\n" ), ) parser.add_argument( "input_file", help="Path to JSON file containing competitive data", ) parser.add_argument( "--format", choices=["json", "text"], default="text", dest="output_format", help="Output format: json or text (default: text)", ) args = parser.parse_args() data = load_competitive_data(args.input_file) result = analyze_competitive(data) if args.output_format == "json": print(json.dumps(result, indent=2)) else: print(format_text(result)) if __name__ == "__main__": main() FILE:sales-engineer/scripts/poc_planner.py #!/usr/bin/env python3 """POC Planner - Plan proof-of-concept engagements with timeline, resources, and scorecards. Generates structured POC plans including phased timelines, resource allocation, success criteria with measurable metrics, evaluation scorecards, risk identification, and go/no-go recommendation frameworks. Usage: python poc_planner.py poc_data.json python poc_planner.py poc_data.json --format json python poc_planner.py poc_data.json --format text """ import argparse import json import sys from typing import Any # Default phase definitions DEFAULT_PHASES = [ { "name": "Setup", "duration_weeks": 1, "description": "Environment provisioning, data migration, initial configuration", "activities": [ "Provision POC environment", "Configure authentication and access", "Migrate sample data sets", "Set up monitoring and logging", "Conduct kickoff meeting with stakeholders", ], }, { "name": "Core Testing", "duration_weeks": 2, "description": "Primary use case validation and integration testing", "activities": [ "Execute primary use case scenarios", "Test core integrations", "Validate data flow and transformations", "Conduct mid-point review with stakeholders", "Document findings and adjust test plan", ], }, { "name": "Advanced Testing", "duration_weeks": 1, "description": "Edge cases, performance testing, and security validation", "activities": [ "Execute edge case scenarios", "Run performance and load tests", "Validate security controls and compliance", "Test disaster recovery and failover", "Test administrative workflows", ], }, { "name": "Evaluation", "duration_weeks": 1, "description": "Scorecard completion, stakeholder review, and go/no-go decision", "activities": [ "Complete evaluation scorecard", "Compile POC results documentation", "Conduct final stakeholder review", "Present go/no-go recommendation", "Gather lessons learned", ], }, ] # Evaluation categories with default weights DEFAULT_EVAL_CATEGORIES = { "Functionality": { "weight": 0.30, "criteria": [ "Core feature completeness", "Use case coverage", "Customization flexibility", "Workflow automation", ], }, "Performance": { "weight": 0.20, "criteria": [ "Response time under load", "Throughput capacity", "Scalability characteristics", "Resource utilization", ], }, "Integration": { "weight": 0.20, "criteria": [ "API completeness and documentation", "Data migration ease", "Third-party connector availability", "Authentication/SSO integration", ], }, "Usability": { "weight": 0.15, "criteria": [ "User interface intuitiveness", "Learning curve assessment", "Documentation quality", "Admin console functionality", ], }, "Support": { "weight": 0.15, "criteria": [ "Technical support responsiveness", "Knowledge base quality", "Training resources availability", "Community and ecosystem", ], }, } def safe_divide(numerator: float, denominator: float, default: float = 0.0) -> float: """Safely divide two numbers, returning default if denominator is zero.""" if denominator == 0: return default return numerator / denominator def load_poc_data(filepath: str) -> dict[str, Any]: """Load and validate POC data from a JSON file. Args: filepath: Path to the JSON file containing POC data. Returns: Parsed POC data dictionary. Raises: SystemExit: If the file cannot be read or parsed. """ try: with open(filepath, "r", encoding="utf-8") as f: data = json.load(f) except FileNotFoundError: print(f"Error: File not found: {filepath}", file=sys.stderr) sys.exit(1) except json.JSONDecodeError as e: print(f"Error: Invalid JSON in {filepath}: {e}", file=sys.stderr) sys.exit(1) if "poc_name" not in data: print("Error: JSON must contain 'poc_name' field.", file=sys.stderr) sys.exit(1) return data def estimate_resources(data: dict[str, Any], phases: list[dict[str, Any]]) -> dict[str, Any]: """Estimate resource requirements for the POC. Args: data: POC data with scope and requirements. phases: List of phase definitions. Returns: Resource allocation dictionary. """ total_weeks = sum(p["duration_weeks"] for p in phases) complexity = data.get("complexity", "medium").lower() scope_items = data.get("scope_items", []) num_integrations = data.get("num_integrations", 0) # Base SE hours per week by complexity se_hours_per_week = {"low": 15, "medium": 25, "high": 35}.get(complexity, 25) # Engineering support hours eng_base = {"low": 5, "medium": 10, "high": 20}.get(complexity, 10) eng_integration_hours = num_integrations * 8 # Customer resource hours customer_hours_per_week = {"low": 5, "medium": 8, "high": 12}.get(complexity, 8) se_total = se_hours_per_week * total_weeks eng_total = (eng_base * total_weeks) + eng_integration_hours customer_total = customer_hours_per_week * total_weeks # Phase-level breakdown phase_resources = [] for phase in phases: weeks = phase["duration_weeks"] # Setup phase has higher SE and eng effort se_multiplier = 1.3 if phase["name"] == "Setup" else ( 1.0 if phase["name"] in ("Core Testing", "Advanced Testing") else 0.7 ) eng_multiplier = 1.5 if phase["name"] == "Setup" else ( 1.0 if phase["name"] == "Core Testing" else ( 1.2 if phase["name"] == "Advanced Testing" else 0.5 ) ) phase_resources.append({ "phase": phase["name"], "duration_weeks": weeks, "se_hours": round(se_hours_per_week * weeks * se_multiplier), "engineering_hours": round(eng_base * weeks * eng_multiplier), "customer_hours": round(customer_hours_per_week * weeks), }) return { "total_duration_weeks": total_weeks, "complexity": complexity, "totals": { "se_hours": se_total, "engineering_hours": eng_total, "customer_hours": customer_total, "total_hours": se_total + eng_total + customer_total, }, "phase_breakdown": phase_resources, "additional_resources": { "integration_hours": eng_integration_hours, "num_integrations": num_integrations, }, } def generate_success_criteria(data: dict[str, Any]) -> list[dict[str, Any]]: """Generate success criteria based on POC scope and requirements. Args: data: POC data with scope and requirements. Returns: List of success criteria with metrics. """ criteria = [] # Custom criteria from input custom_criteria = data.get("success_criteria", []) for cc in custom_criteria: criteria.append({ "criterion": cc.get("criterion", "Unnamed criterion"), "metric": cc.get("metric", "Pass/Fail"), "target": cc.get("target", "Met"), "category": cc.get("category", "Functionality"), "priority": cc.get("priority", "must-have"), }) # Auto-generated criteria based on scope scope_items = data.get("scope_items", []) for item in scope_items: if isinstance(item, str): criteria.append({ "criterion": f"Validate: {item}", "metric": "Pass/Fail", "target": "Pass", "category": "Functionality", "priority": "must-have", }) elif isinstance(item, dict): criteria.append({ "criterion": item.get("name", "Unnamed scope item"), "metric": item.get("metric", "Pass/Fail"), "target": item.get("target", "Pass"), "category": item.get("category", "Functionality"), "priority": item.get("priority", "must-have"), }) # Default criteria if none provided if not criteria: criteria = [ { "criterion": "Core use case validation", "metric": "Percentage of use cases successfully demonstrated", "target": ">90%", "category": "Functionality", "priority": "must-have", }, { "criterion": "Performance under expected load", "metric": "Response time at target concurrency", "target": "<2 seconds p95", "category": "Performance", "priority": "must-have", }, { "criterion": "Integration with existing systems", "metric": "Number of integrations successfully tested", "target": "All planned integrations", "category": "Integration", "priority": "must-have", }, { "criterion": "User acceptance", "metric": "Stakeholder satisfaction score", "target": ">4.0/5.0", "category": "Usability", "priority": "should-have", }, ] return criteria def generate_evaluation_scorecard(data: dict[str, Any]) -> dict[str, Any]: """Generate the POC evaluation scorecard template. Args: data: POC data. Returns: Evaluation scorecard structure. """ custom_categories = data.get("evaluation_categories", {}) # Merge custom categories with defaults categories = {} for cat_name, cat_data in DEFAULT_EVAL_CATEGORIES.items(): if cat_name in custom_categories: custom = custom_categories[cat_name] categories[cat_name] = { "weight": custom.get("weight", cat_data["weight"]), "criteria": custom.get("criteria", cat_data["criteria"]), "score": None, "notes": "", } else: categories[cat_name] = { "weight": cat_data["weight"], "criteria": cat_data["criteria"], "score": None, "notes": "", } # Normalize weights to sum to 1.0 total_weight = sum(c["weight"] for c in categories.values()) if total_weight > 0 and abs(total_weight - 1.0) > 0.01: for cat in categories.values(): cat["weight"] = round(safe_divide(cat["weight"], total_weight), 2) return { "scoring_scale": { "5": "Exceeds requirements - superior capability", "4": "Meets requirements - full capability", "3": "Partially meets - acceptable with minor gaps", "2": "Below expectations - significant gaps", "1": "Does not meet - critical gaps", }, "categories": categories, "pass_threshold": 3.5, "strong_pass_threshold": 4.0, } def identify_risks(data: dict[str, Any], resources: dict[str, Any]) -> list[dict[str, Any]]: """Identify POC risks and generate mitigation strategies. Args: data: POC data. resources: Resource allocation data. Returns: List of risk entries with probability, impact, and mitigation. """ risks = [] complexity = data.get("complexity", "medium").lower() num_integrations = data.get("num_integrations", 0) total_weeks = resources["total_duration_weeks"] stakeholders = data.get("stakeholders", []) # Timeline risk if total_weeks > 6: risks.append({ "risk": "Extended timeline may lose stakeholder attention", "probability": "high", "impact": "high", "mitigation": "Schedule weekly progress checkpoints; deliver early wins in week 2", "category": "Timeline", }) elif total_weeks >= 4: risks.append({ "risk": "Timeline may slip due to unforeseen technical issues", "probability": "medium", "impact": "medium", "mitigation": "Build 20% buffer into each phase; identify critical path early", "category": "Timeline", }) # Integration risks if num_integrations > 3: risks.append({ "risk": "Multiple integrations increase complexity and failure points", "probability": "high", "impact": "high", "mitigation": "Prioritize integrations by business value; test incrementally; have fallback demo data", "category": "Technical", }) elif num_integrations > 0: risks.append({ "risk": "Integration dependencies may cause delays", "probability": "medium", "impact": "medium", "mitigation": "Engage customer IT early; confirm API access and credentials in setup phase", "category": "Technical", }) # Data risks risks.append({ "risk": "Customer data quality or availability issues", "probability": "medium", "impact": "high", "mitigation": "Request sample data early; prepare synthetic data as fallback; validate data format in setup", "category": "Data", }) # Stakeholder risks if len(stakeholders) > 5: risks.append({ "risk": "Too many stakeholders may slow decision-making", "probability": "medium", "impact": "medium", "mitigation": "Identify decision-maker and champion; schedule focused reviews per stakeholder group", "category": "Stakeholder", }) if not stakeholders: risks.append({ "risk": "Undefined stakeholder map may lead to misaligned evaluation", "probability": "high", "impact": "high", "mitigation": "Confirm stakeholder list, roles, and evaluation criteria before setup phase", "category": "Stakeholder", }) # Resource risks if complexity == "high": risks.append({ "risk": "High complexity may require additional engineering resources", "probability": "medium", "impact": "high", "mitigation": "Secure engineering commitment upfront; identify escalation path for blockers", "category": "Resource", }) # Competitive risk risks.append({ "risk": "Competitor POC running in parallel may shift evaluation criteria", "probability": "medium", "impact": "medium", "mitigation": "Stay close to champion; align success criteria early; differentiate on unique strengths", "category": "Competitive", }) return risks def generate_go_no_go_framework(data: dict[str, Any]) -> dict[str, Any]: """Generate the go/no-go decision framework. Args: data: POC data. Returns: Go/no-go framework with criteria and thresholds. """ return { "decision_criteria": [ { "criterion": "Overall scorecard score", "go_threshold": ">=3.5 weighted average", "no_go_threshold": "<3.0 weighted average", "conditional_range": "3.0 - 3.5", }, { "criterion": "Must-have success criteria met", "go_threshold": "100% of must-have criteria pass", "no_go_threshold": "<80% of must-have criteria pass", "conditional_range": "80-99% with mitigation plan", }, { "criterion": "Stakeholder satisfaction", "go_threshold": "Champion and decision-maker both positive", "no_go_threshold": "Decision-maker negative", "conditional_range": "Mixed signals - needs follow-up", }, { "criterion": "Technical blockers", "go_threshold": "No unresolved critical blockers", "no_go_threshold": ">2 unresolved critical blockers", "conditional_range": "1-2 blockers with clear resolution path", }, ], "recommendation_logic": { "GO": "All criteria meet go thresholds, or majority go with no no-go triggers", "CONDITIONAL_GO": "Some criteria in conditional range, but no no-go triggers and clear resolution plan", "NO_GO": "Any criterion triggers no-go threshold without clear mitigation", }, } def plan_poc(data: dict[str, Any]) -> dict[str, Any]: """Run the complete POC planning pipeline. Args: data: Parsed POC data dictionary. Returns: Complete POC plan dictionary. """ poc_info = { "poc_name": data.get("poc_name", "Unnamed POC"), "customer": data.get("customer", "Unknown Customer"), "opportunity_value": data.get("opportunity_value", "Not specified"), "complexity": data.get("complexity", "medium"), "start_date": data.get("start_date", "TBD"), "champion": data.get("champion", "Not identified"), "decision_maker": data.get("decision_maker", "Not identified"), } # Use custom phases if provided, otherwise defaults phases = data.get("phases", DEFAULT_PHASES) # Resource estimation resources = estimate_resources(data, phases) # Success criteria success_criteria = generate_success_criteria(data) # Evaluation scorecard scorecard = generate_evaluation_scorecard(data) # Risk identification risks = identify_risks(data, resources) # Go/No-Go framework go_no_go = generate_go_no_go_framework(data) # Timeline with phase details timeline = [] current_week = 1 for phase in phases: end_week = current_week + phase["duration_weeks"] - 1 timeline.append({ "phase": phase["name"], "start_week": current_week, "end_week": end_week, "duration_weeks": phase["duration_weeks"], "description": phase["description"], "activities": phase["activities"], }) current_week = end_week + 1 # Stakeholder plan stakeholders = data.get("stakeholders", []) stakeholder_plan = [] for s in stakeholders: if isinstance(s, str): stakeholder_plan.append({ "name": s, "role": "Evaluator", "engagement": "Weekly updates, phase reviews", }) elif isinstance(s, dict): stakeholder_plan.append({ "name": s.get("name", "Unknown"), "role": s.get("role", "Evaluator"), "engagement": s.get("engagement", "Weekly updates, phase reviews"), }) return { "poc_info": poc_info, "timeline": timeline, "resource_allocation": resources, "success_criteria": success_criteria, "evaluation_scorecard": scorecard, "risk_register": risks, "go_no_go_framework": go_no_go, "stakeholder_plan": stakeholder_plan, } def format_text(result: dict[str, Any]) -> str: """Format POC plan as human-readable text. Args: result: Complete POC plan dictionary. Returns: Formatted text string. """ lines = [] info = result["poc_info"] lines.append("=" * 70) lines.append("PROOF OF CONCEPT PLAN") lines.append("=" * 70) lines.append(f"POC Name: {info['poc_name']}") lines.append(f"Customer: {info['customer']}") lines.append(f"Opportunity Value: {info['opportunity_value']}") lines.append(f"Complexity: {info['complexity'].upper()}") lines.append(f"Start Date: {info['start_date']}") lines.append(f"Champion: {info['champion']}") lines.append(f"Decision Maker: {info['decision_maker']}") lines.append("") # Timeline lines.append("-" * 70) lines.append("TIMELINE") lines.append("-" * 70) for phase in result["timeline"]: week_range = ( f"Week {phase['start_week']}" if phase["start_week"] == phase["end_week"] else f"Weeks {phase['start_week']}-{phase['end_week']}" ) lines.append(f"\n Phase: {phase['phase']} ({week_range})") lines.append(f" {phase['description']}") lines.append(" Activities:") for activity in phase["activities"]: lines.append(f" - {activity}") lines.append("") # Resource allocation res = result["resource_allocation"] lines.append("-" * 70) lines.append("RESOURCE ALLOCATION") lines.append("-" * 70) lines.append(f"Total Duration: {res['total_duration_weeks']} weeks") lines.append(f"Complexity: {res['complexity'].upper()}") lines.append("") lines.append(" Totals:") lines.append(f" SE Hours: {res['totals']['se_hours']}") lines.append(f" Engineering Hours: {res['totals']['engineering_hours']}") lines.append(f" Customer Hours: {res['totals']['customer_hours']}") lines.append(f" Total Hours: {res['totals']['total_hours']}") lines.append("") lines.append(" Phase Breakdown:") lines.append(f" {'Phase':<20} {'Weeks':>5} {'SE':>6} {'Eng':>6} {'Cust':>6}") lines.append(" " + "-" * 45) for pr in res["phase_breakdown"]: lines.append( f" {pr['phase']:<20} {pr['duration_weeks']:>5} " f"{pr['se_hours']:>5}h {pr['engineering_hours']:>5}h {pr['customer_hours']:>5}h" ) lines.append("") # Success criteria criteria = result["success_criteria"] lines.append("-" * 70) lines.append("SUCCESS CRITERIA") lines.append("-" * 70) for i, sc in enumerate(criteria, 1): priority_marker = "[MUST]" if sc["priority"] == "must-have" else ( "[SHOULD]" if sc["priority"] == "should-have" else "[NICE]" ) lines.append(f" {i}. {priority_marker} {sc['criterion']}") lines.append(f" Metric: {sc['metric']}") lines.append(f" Target: {sc['target']}") lines.append(f" Category: {sc['category']}") lines.append("") # Evaluation scorecard scorecard = result["evaluation_scorecard"] lines.append("-" * 70) lines.append("EVALUATION SCORECARD") lines.append("-" * 70) lines.append(f" Pass Threshold: {scorecard['pass_threshold']}/5.0") lines.append(f" Strong Pass Threshold: {scorecard['strong_pass_threshold']}/5.0") lines.append("") lines.append(" Scoring Scale:") for score, desc in scorecard["scoring_scale"].items(): lines.append(f" {score} = {desc}") lines.append("") lines.append(" Categories:") for cat_name, cat_data in scorecard["categories"].items(): lines.append(f"\n {cat_name} (weight: {cat_data['weight']:.0%})") for criterion in cat_data["criteria"]: lines.append(f" [ ] {criterion}") lines.append("") # Risk register risks = result["risk_register"] lines.append("-" * 70) lines.append("RISK REGISTER") lines.append("-" * 70) for risk in risks: lines.append(f" [{risk['impact'].upper()}] {risk['risk']}") lines.append(f" Probability: {risk['probability']} | Impact: {risk['impact']}") lines.append(f" Category: {risk['category']}") lines.append(f" Mitigation: {risk['mitigation']}") lines.append("") # Go/No-Go framework framework = result["go_no_go_framework"] lines.append("-" * 70) lines.append("GO / NO-GO DECISION FRAMEWORK") lines.append("-" * 70) for dc in framework["decision_criteria"]: lines.append(f" {dc['criterion']}:") lines.append(f" GO: {dc['go_threshold']}") lines.append(f" CONDITIONAL: {dc['conditional_range']}") lines.append(f" NO-GO: {dc['no_go_threshold']}") lines.append("") lines.append(" Recommendation Logic:") for decision, logic in framework["recommendation_logic"].items(): lines.append(f" {decision}: {logic}") lines.append("") # Stakeholder plan stakeholders = result["stakeholder_plan"] if stakeholders: lines.append("-" * 70) lines.append("STAKEHOLDER PLAN") lines.append("-" * 70) for s in stakeholders: lines.append(f" {s['name']} ({s['role']})") lines.append(f" Engagement: {s['engagement']}") lines.append("") lines.append("=" * 70) return "\n".join(lines) def main() -> None: """Main entry point for the POC Planner.""" parser = argparse.ArgumentParser( description="Plan proof-of-concept engagements with timeline, resources, and evaluation scorecards.", formatter_class=argparse.RawDescriptionHelpFormatter, epilog=( "Default Phases:\n" " Week 1: Setup - Environment provisioning, configuration\n" " Weeks 2-3: Core Testing - Primary use cases, integrations\n" " Week 4: Advanced Testing - Edge cases, performance, security\n" " Week 5: Evaluation - Scorecard, stakeholder review, go/no-go\n" "\n" "Example:\n" " python poc_planner.py poc_data.json --format json\n" ), ) parser.add_argument( "input_file", help="Path to JSON file containing POC scope and requirements", ) parser.add_argument( "--format", choices=["json", "text"], default="text", dest="output_format", help="Output format: json or text (default: text)", ) args = parser.parse_args() data = load_poc_data(args.input_file) result = plan_poc(data) if args.output_format == "json": print(json.dumps(result, indent=2)) else: print(format_text(result)) if __name__ == "__main__": main() FILE:sales-engineer/scripts/rfp_response_analyzer.py #!/usr/bin/env python3 """RFP/RFI Response Analyzer - Score coverage, identify gaps, and recommend bid/no-bid. Parses RFP/RFI requirements and scores coverage using Full/Partial/Planned/Gap categories. Generates weighted coverage scores, gap analysis with mitigation strategies, effort estimation, and bid/no-bid recommendations. Usage: python rfp_response_analyzer.py rfp_data.json python rfp_response_analyzer.py rfp_data.json --format json python rfp_response_analyzer.py rfp_data.json --format text """ import argparse import json import sys from typing import Any # Coverage status to score mapping COVERAGE_SCORES: dict[str, float] = { "full": 1.0, "partial": 0.5, "planned": 0.25, "gap": 0.0, } # Priority to weight mapping PRIORITY_WEIGHTS: dict[str, float] = { "must-have": 3.0, "should-have": 2.0, "nice-to-have": 1.0, } # Bid thresholds BID_THRESHOLD = 0.70 CONDITIONAL_THRESHOLD = 0.50 MAX_MUST_HAVE_GAPS_FOR_BID = 3 def safe_divide(numerator: float, denominator: float, default: float = 0.0) -> float: """Safely divide two numbers, returning default if denominator is zero.""" if denominator == 0: return default return numerator / denominator def load_rfp_data(filepath: str) -> dict[str, Any]: """Load and validate RFP data from a JSON file. Args: filepath: Path to the JSON file containing RFP data. Returns: Parsed RFP data dictionary. Raises: SystemExit: If the file cannot be read or parsed. """ try: with open(filepath, "r", encoding="utf-8") as f: data = json.load(f) except FileNotFoundError: print(f"Error: File not found: {filepath}", file=sys.stderr) sys.exit(1) except json.JSONDecodeError as e: print(f"Error: Invalid JSON in {filepath}: {e}", file=sys.stderr) sys.exit(1) if "requirements" not in data: print("Error: JSON must contain a 'requirements' array.", file=sys.stderr) sys.exit(1) return data def analyze_requirement(req: dict[str, Any]) -> dict[str, Any]: """Analyze a single requirement and compute its score. Args: req: Requirement dictionary with category, priority, coverage_status, etc. Returns: Enriched requirement with computed score and weight. """ coverage_status = req.get("coverage_status", "gap").lower() priority = req.get("priority", "nice-to-have").lower() coverage_score = COVERAGE_SCORES.get(coverage_status, 0.0) weight = PRIORITY_WEIGHTS.get(priority, 1.0) weighted_score = coverage_score * weight max_weighted = weight effort_hours = req.get("effort_hours", 0) result = { "id": req.get("id", "unknown"), "requirement": req.get("requirement", "Unnamed requirement"), "category": req.get("category", "Uncategorized"), "priority": priority, "coverage_status": coverage_status, "coverage_score": coverage_score, "weight": weight, "weighted_score": weighted_score, "max_weighted": max_weighted, "effort_hours": effort_hours, "notes": req.get("notes", ""), "mitigation": req.get("mitigation", ""), } return result def generate_gap_analysis(analyzed_reqs: list[dict[str, Any]]) -> list[dict[str, Any]]: """Generate gap analysis for requirements not fully covered. Args: analyzed_reqs: List of analyzed requirement dictionaries. Returns: List of gap entries with mitigation strategies. """ gaps = [] for req in analyzed_reqs: if req["coverage_status"] in ("gap", "partial", "planned"): severity = "critical" if req["priority"] == "must-have" else ( "high" if req["priority"] == "should-have" else "low" ) mitigation = req["mitigation"] if not mitigation: if req["coverage_status"] == "partial": mitigation = "Enhance existing capability to achieve full coverage" elif req["coverage_status"] == "planned": mitigation = "Communicate roadmap timeline and interim workaround" else: mitigation = "Evaluate build vs. partner vs. no-bid for this requirement" gaps.append({ "id": req["id"], "requirement": req["requirement"], "category": req["category"], "priority": req["priority"], "coverage_status": req["coverage_status"], "severity": severity, "effort_hours": req["effort_hours"], "mitigation": mitigation, }) # Sort by severity: critical > high > low severity_order = {"critical": 0, "high": 1, "low": 2} gaps.sort(key=lambda g: severity_order.get(g["severity"], 3)) return gaps def compute_category_scores(analyzed_reqs: list[dict[str, Any]]) -> dict[str, dict[str, Any]]: """Compute coverage scores grouped by requirement category. Args: analyzed_reqs: List of analyzed requirement dictionaries. Returns: Dictionary of category names to score summaries. """ categories: dict[str, dict[str, float]] = {} for req in analyzed_reqs: cat = req["category"] if cat not in categories: categories[cat] = { "weighted_score": 0.0, "max_weighted": 0.0, "count": 0, "full_count": 0, "partial_count": 0, "planned_count": 0, "gap_count": 0, "effort_hours": 0, } categories[cat]["weighted_score"] += req["weighted_score"] categories[cat]["max_weighted"] += req["max_weighted"] categories[cat]["count"] += 1 categories[cat]["effort_hours"] += req["effort_hours"] status_key = f"{req['coverage_status']}_count" if status_key in categories[cat]: categories[cat][status_key] += 1 result = {} for cat, scores in categories.items(): coverage_pct = safe_divide(scores["weighted_score"], scores["max_weighted"]) * 100 result[cat] = { "coverage_percentage": round(coverage_pct, 1), "requirements_count": int(scores["count"]), "full": int(scores["full_count"]), "partial": int(scores["partial_count"]), "planned": int(scores["planned_count"]), "gap": int(scores["gap_count"]), "effort_hours": int(scores["effort_hours"]), } return result def determine_bid_recommendation( overall_coverage: float, must_have_gaps: int, strategic_value: str, ) -> dict[str, Any]: """Determine bid/no-bid recommendation based on coverage and gaps. Args: overall_coverage: Overall weighted coverage percentage (0-100). must_have_gaps: Number of must-have requirements with gap status. strategic_value: Strategic value assessment (high, medium, low). Returns: Recommendation dictionary with decision and rationale. """ coverage_ratio = overall_coverage / 100.0 reasons = [] # Primary decision logic if coverage_ratio >= BID_THRESHOLD and must_have_gaps <= MAX_MUST_HAVE_GAPS_FOR_BID: decision = "BID" reasons.append(f"Coverage score {overall_coverage:.1f}% exceeds {BID_THRESHOLD*100:.0f}% threshold") if must_have_gaps > 0: reasons.append(f"{must_have_gaps} must-have gap(s) within acceptable range (max {MAX_MUST_HAVE_GAPS_FOR_BID})") elif coverage_ratio >= CONDITIONAL_THRESHOLD or ( must_have_gaps <= MAX_MUST_HAVE_GAPS_FOR_BID and coverage_ratio >= 0.4 ): decision = "CONDITIONAL BID" reasons.append(f"Coverage score {overall_coverage:.1f}% in conditional range ({CONDITIONAL_THRESHOLD*100:.0f}%-{BID_THRESHOLD*100:.0f}%)") if must_have_gaps > 0: reasons.append(f"{must_have_gaps} must-have gap(s) require mitigation plan") else: decision = "NO-BID" if coverage_ratio < CONDITIONAL_THRESHOLD: reasons.append(f"Coverage score {overall_coverage:.1f}% below {CONDITIONAL_THRESHOLD*100:.0f}% minimum") if must_have_gaps > MAX_MUST_HAVE_GAPS_FOR_BID: reasons.append(f"{must_have_gaps} must-have gaps exceed maximum of {MAX_MUST_HAVE_GAPS_FOR_BID}") # Strategic value adjustment if strategic_value.lower() == "high" and decision == "CONDITIONAL BID": reasons.append("High strategic value supports pursuing despite coverage gaps") elif strategic_value.lower() == "low" and decision == "CONDITIONAL BID": decision = "NO-BID" reasons.append("Low strategic value does not justify investment for conditional coverage") confidence = "high" if coverage_ratio >= 0.80 else ( "medium" if coverage_ratio >= 0.60 else "low" ) return { "decision": decision, "confidence": confidence, "overall_coverage_percentage": round(overall_coverage, 1), "must_have_gaps": must_have_gaps, "strategic_value": strategic_value, "reasons": reasons, } def generate_risk_assessment( analyzed_reqs: list[dict[str, Any]], gaps: list[dict[str, Any]], ) -> list[dict[str, str]]: """Generate risk assessment based on gaps and coverage patterns. Args: analyzed_reqs: List of analyzed requirement dictionaries. gaps: List of gap analysis entries. Returns: List of risk entries with impact and mitigation. """ risks = [] critical_gaps = [g for g in gaps if g["severity"] == "critical"] if critical_gaps: risks.append({ "risk": "Critical requirement gaps", "impact": "high", "description": f"{len(critical_gaps)} must-have requirements not fully met", "mitigation": "Prioritize engineering effort or partner integration for gap closure", }) total_effort = sum(r["effort_hours"] for r in analyzed_reqs if r["coverage_status"] != "full") if total_effort > 200: risks.append({ "risk": "High customization effort", "impact": "high", "description": f"{total_effort} hours estimated for non-full requirements", "mitigation": "Evaluate resource availability and timeline feasibility before committing", }) elif total_effort > 80: risks.append({ "risk": "Moderate customization effort", "impact": "medium", "description": f"{total_effort} hours estimated for non-full requirements", "mitigation": "Phase implementation and set clear expectations on delivery timeline", }) planned_count = sum(1 for r in analyzed_reqs if r["coverage_status"] == "planned") if planned_count > 3: risks.append({ "risk": "Roadmap dependency", "impact": "medium", "description": f"{planned_count} requirements depend on planned product features", "mitigation": "Confirm roadmap timelines with product team; include contractual commitments if needed", }) partial_count = sum(1 for r in analyzed_reqs if r["coverage_status"] == "partial") if partial_count > 5: risks.append({ "risk": "Workaround complexity", "impact": "medium", "description": f"{partial_count} requirements need workarounds or configuration", "mitigation": "Document workarounds clearly; plan for native support in future releases", }) if not risks: risks.append({ "risk": "No significant risks identified", "impact": "low", "description": "Strong coverage across all requirement categories", "mitigation": "Maintain standard engagement process", }) return risks def analyze_rfp(data: dict[str, Any]) -> dict[str, Any]: """Run the complete RFP analysis pipeline. Args: data: Parsed RFP data with requirements array. Returns: Complete analysis results dictionary. """ rfp_info = { "rfp_name": data.get("rfp_name", "Unnamed RFP"), "customer": data.get("customer", "Unknown Customer"), "due_date": data.get("due_date", "Not specified"), "strategic_value": data.get("strategic_value", "medium"), "deal_value": data.get("deal_value", "Not specified"), } # Analyze each requirement analyzed_reqs = [analyze_requirement(req) for req in data["requirements"]] # Compute overall scores total_weighted = sum(r["weighted_score"] for r in analyzed_reqs) total_max = sum(r["max_weighted"] for r in analyzed_reqs) overall_coverage = safe_divide(total_weighted, total_max) * 100 # Coverage summary total_count = len(analyzed_reqs) full_count = sum(1 for r in analyzed_reqs if r["coverage_status"] == "full") partial_count = sum(1 for r in analyzed_reqs if r["coverage_status"] == "partial") planned_count = sum(1 for r in analyzed_reqs if r["coverage_status"] == "planned") gap_count = sum(1 for r in analyzed_reqs if r["coverage_status"] == "gap") # Must-have gap count must_have_gaps = sum( 1 for r in analyzed_reqs if r["priority"] == "must-have" and r["coverage_status"] == "gap" ) # Category breakdown category_scores = compute_category_scores(analyzed_reqs) # Gap analysis gaps = generate_gap_analysis(analyzed_reqs) # Bid recommendation bid_recommendation = determine_bid_recommendation( overall_coverage, must_have_gaps, rfp_info["strategic_value"], ) # Risk assessment risks = generate_risk_assessment(analyzed_reqs, gaps) # Effort summary total_effort = sum(r["effort_hours"] for r in analyzed_reqs) gap_effort = sum(r["effort_hours"] for r in analyzed_reqs if r["coverage_status"] != "full") return { "rfp_info": rfp_info, "coverage_summary": { "overall_coverage_percentage": round(overall_coverage, 1), "total_requirements": total_count, "full": full_count, "partial": partial_count, "planned": planned_count, "gap": gap_count, "must_have_gaps": must_have_gaps, }, "category_scores": category_scores, "bid_recommendation": bid_recommendation, "gap_analysis": gaps, "risk_assessment": risks, "effort_estimate": { "total_hours": total_effort, "gap_closure_hours": gap_effort, "full_coverage_hours": total_effort - gap_effort, }, "requirements_detail": analyzed_reqs, } def format_text(result: dict[str, Any]) -> str: """Format analysis results as human-readable text. Args: result: Complete analysis results dictionary. Returns: Formatted text string. """ lines = [] info = result["rfp_info"] lines.append("=" * 70) lines.append("RFP RESPONSE ANALYSIS") lines.append("=" * 70) lines.append(f"RFP: {info['rfp_name']}") lines.append(f"Customer: {info['customer']}") lines.append(f"Due Date: {info['due_date']}") lines.append(f"Deal Value: {info['deal_value']}") lines.append(f"Strategic Value: {info['strategic_value'].upper()}") lines.append("") # Coverage summary cs = result["coverage_summary"] lines.append("-" * 70) lines.append("COVERAGE SUMMARY") lines.append("-" * 70) lines.append(f"Overall Coverage: {cs['overall_coverage_percentage']}%") lines.append(f"Total Requirements: {cs['total_requirements']}") lines.append(f" Full: {cs['full']} | Partial: {cs['partial']} | Planned: {cs['planned']} | Gap: {cs['gap']}") lines.append(f"Must-Have Gaps: {cs['must_have_gaps']}") lines.append("") # Bid recommendation bid = result["bid_recommendation"] lines.append("-" * 70) lines.append(f"BID RECOMMENDATION: {bid['decision']}") lines.append(f"Confidence: {bid['confidence'].upper()}") lines.append("-" * 70) for reason in bid["reasons"]: lines.append(f" - {reason}") lines.append("") # Category scores lines.append("-" * 70) lines.append("CATEGORY BREAKDOWN") lines.append("-" * 70) lines.append(f"{'Category':<25} {'Coverage':>8} {'Full':>5} {'Part':>5} {'Plan':>5} {'Gap':>5} {'Effort':>7}") lines.append("-" * 70) for cat, scores in result["category_scores"].items(): lines.append( f"{cat:<25} {scores['coverage_percentage']:>7.1f}% " f"{scores['full']:>5} {scores['partial']:>5} " f"{scores['planned']:>5} {scores['gap']:>5} " f"{scores['effort_hours']:>6}h" ) lines.append("") # Gap analysis gaps = result["gap_analysis"] if gaps: lines.append("-" * 70) lines.append("GAP ANALYSIS") lines.append("-" * 70) for gap in gaps: severity_marker = "!!!" if gap["severity"] == "critical" else ( "!!" if gap["severity"] == "high" else "!" ) lines.append(f" [{severity_marker}] {gap['id']}: {gap['requirement']}") lines.append(f" Category: {gap['category']} | Priority: {gap['priority']} | Status: {gap['coverage_status']}") lines.append(f" Effort: {gap['effort_hours']}h | Mitigation: {gap['mitigation']}") lines.append("") # Risk assessment risks = result["risk_assessment"] lines.append("-" * 70) lines.append("RISK ASSESSMENT") lines.append("-" * 70) for risk in risks: lines.append(f" [{risk['impact'].upper()}] {risk['risk']}") lines.append(f" {risk['description']}") lines.append(f" Mitigation: {risk['mitigation']}") lines.append("") # Effort estimate effort = result["effort_estimate"] lines.append("-" * 70) lines.append("EFFORT ESTIMATE") lines.append("-" * 70) lines.append(f" Total Effort: {effort['total_hours']} hours") lines.append(f" Gap Closure Effort: {effort['gap_closure_hours']} hours") lines.append(f" Supported Effort: {effort['full_coverage_hours']} hours") lines.append("") lines.append("=" * 70) return "\n".join(lines) def main() -> None: """Main entry point for the RFP Response Analyzer.""" parser = argparse.ArgumentParser( description="Analyze RFP/RFI requirements for coverage, gaps, and bid recommendation.", formatter_class=argparse.RawDescriptionHelpFormatter, epilog=( "Coverage Categories:\n" " Full (100%) - Requirement fully met\n" " Partial (50%) - Partially met, workaround needed\n" " Planned (25%) - On roadmap, not yet available\n" " Gap (0%) - Not supported\n" "\n" "Priority Weights:\n" " Must-Have (3x) | Should-Have (2x) | Nice-to-Have (1x)\n" "\n" "Example:\n" " python rfp_response_analyzer.py rfp_data.json --format json\n" ), ) parser.add_argument( "input_file", help="Path to JSON file containing RFP requirements data", ) parser.add_argument( "--format", choices=["json", "text"], default="text", dest="output_format", help="Output format: json or text (default: text)", ) args = parser.parse_args() data = load_rfp_data(args.input_file) result = analyze_rfp(data) if args.output_format == "json": print(json.dumps(result, indent=2)) else: print(format_text(result)) if __name__ == "__main__": main()

business-growth

Comments (0)