Sales Qualification Frameworks – Are You TEMPTed?

“If you lose money you can earn more, or somebody may die and leave you a legacy. But nobody will ever die and leave you any legacy of time. A minute wasted is not to be made up.” – 𝘚𝘢𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱 𝘔𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘻𝘪𝘯𝘦, November 1905

The word “qualification”: I’ve done quite a bit of research on its origins. I haven’t been able to find that word related to a stage or activity in the sales process up to at least through the 1980s.  If you’ve done your homework as a seller and gotten the “interview” (which is what they called the initial meeting), the philosophy was to let the buyer convince YOU that they’re not qualified…not the other way around. 

In the 1950s, IBM is credited with creating the initial framework or checklist in the form of an acronym BANT. BANT stands for Budget | Authority | Need | Timeline. (Through extensive searches, I’ve only found hearsay attribution to IBM for this creation. My friend Richard Nockholds believes in his research that BANT came from an initial acronym of MAN – Money, Authority and Need, which I have found referenced more than once, most recently in a book from 1977)

Since the popularity of BANT, so many other qualification methodologies took shape:

• The ANUM framework, which simply changed the order of BANT, with a priority on Authority over Budget (Authority | Need | Urgency | Money)
• The ChAMP framework, which is another reordering of BANT, with Challenges going first (Challenges | Authority | Money | Prioritization)
• The NEAT framework, where urgency/prioritization is swapped out with Economic Impact and drops the dollars/budget / money element (Need | Economic Impact | Access to Authority | Timeline)
• The FART framework, I mean, why not? I totally made this one up (Funds | Authority | Reason | Timing)

The most popular framework today (not scientifically studied…just from my conversations with clients) is MEDDIC (Metrics | Economic Buyer | Decision Criteria | Decision Process | Identify Pain | Champion), which then added another C (Competition) to become MEDDICC, and then added a P (Paper Process) to become MEDDPICC. Am I the only one who finds that funny, and confusing? Why not MEdCdPCPCP? 

Traditional Frameworks: Designed from the Inside Out

When used correctly, these qualification frameworks can be valuable (and I’m not here to judge). But, I rarely have seen them used correctly. The founders of these frameworks meant in their design to ensure that everyone’s time is optimized. However, like so many elements of the evolution of selling from the 1900s through to today, they tend to focus salespeople inward. They were designed from the inside…out. 

Inward, in that leaders who subscribe to these approaches use the frameworks not to assess buyer behavior, but to check boxes to justify the pursuit of an opportunity. In other words, the prospect begins to feel as though they’ve been put on the witness stand, and have to earn the right to have a discussion about solutions with you.

Future State Framework: Designed from the Outside In?

Can we change the dialogue? Can we design a useful structure from the outside…in? Can we have the same intention of optimizing our time and our customers’ outcomes? I believe that the acronym itself needs to be designed with outward questions from the beginning! While I’ve spoken to many individuals who say, “These frameworks are stupid. Whatever happened to intuition?” Unfortunately, reps who are early in their careers don’t have intuition. Those who are early in their roles in organizations need a framework. Those who are selling complex solutions need something internalized to make sure they’re not accidentally missing a key ingredient, causing them not only to lose – but to lose slowly.

A few years ago, I created an acronym that forced us outward – to recognize buyer behaviors. Like MEDDIC’s expanding waistline became MEDDPICC, my original framework I called “taking the prospect’s TEMP”. However, I realized over time that one important letter was missing. It became a question…is the prospected TEMPTed? Here goes:

• Trigger: Has the prospect shown in their words or actions a belief that their current state is not sustainable? 
• Engagement: A simple test – are you in their calendar for another meeting? (An individual’s willingness to put you into their calendar shows proof of engagement)
• Mobilizer: Are you engaged with someone capable of mobilizing change in their organization? This comes from The Challenger Customer (Dixon/Adamson) and is all centered around recognizing buyer behavior.
• Plan: What does the buying journey look like? If I were to ask the prospect that same question, would the answers match?
• Transparency: Will the truth sell it?

A framework designed from the outside (the customer) in (our time, resources, and likeliness to help the customer achieve their desired outcomes).

I’d love to hear what you think on this topic. I posted a little about it on LinkedIn which inspired some really interesting points, but what are yours? Are you TEMPTed to use it? Or should I keep it simple, and just go trademark FART before one of you takes it?

---

I speak and teach revenue organizations on how to leverage transparency and decision science to maximize their revenue capacity. It’s what I do…teach sellers, their leaders, and really entire revenue organizations how we as human beings make decisions, then how to use that knowledge for good (not evil) in their messaging (informal and formal), negotiations, and revenue leadership. I wrote a 3x award-winning book (𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘛𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘴𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘺 𝘚𝘢𝘭𝘦), and have a newish book out (𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘛𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘴𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘚𝘢𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘓𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘳) now that just won its first award!

Reach out if you want to discuss The Transparency Sale sales methodology, or really…anything else (sales kickoffs, workshops, keynotes, the economy, history, etc.)! Email info@toddcaponi.com or call 847-999-0420.

Sign up for the newsletter for more of my nonsense in your inbox every other week, with some sales history sprinkled on top…Sign Up – The Transparent Newsletter