sample win-loss analysis current quarter

Transcription

1 sample win-loss analysis current quarter

2 Executive Summary The objective of this report is to present the results of the Win-Loss survey information collected by Cerado Inc. Survey information was collected from the sales force for 294 deals. Highlights of the survey: Last quarter, the following deals were reported as deferred. Ambrosta London Health and Life Assurance Mauston Chemical Barber Kansa Gold Bobbins, Davis, Nunn, and Roberts Krystan Traverse Cityl None of these customers appeared in this quarter s survey. This is not surprising, however, since a different set of sales reps were interviewed. A follow-up should be done to determine if any of these deferred deals from last quarter closed. This quarter, fifteen deals were reported as deferred if they are truly deferred, extra effort should be made to bring them to completion early in the quarter. Otherwise, they should be noted as losses in the future or removed from the pipeline. There was a balance of sales across a number of industries this quarter. Industries with the most activity included Healthcare, Global Logistics, Consumer Goods, Active Components, and Pharmaceuticals. The buyers came mostly from the technical ranks (72% from IT), with 17% coming from the executive suite. In contrast to the above finding, most of the people who signed for the projects were Executives (65%), with only 22% coming from IT. It is not known if the initial contact was to the executive, or the technical buyer. If the initial contact was to the executive, who then redirected the rep to the technical contact, then the process seems to be working. However, if the initial contact and relationship was built with the technical buyer, and then the rep had to work upstream to get to the executive with signing authority, sales cycles might be able to be shortened by selling higher at the outset. Again, Auric Co. was the largest competitor, listed as the primary competitor in 19% of the reported deals. In addition, they were the secondary competitor in 12% of the deals. Auric was 3X more likely to be listed as the primary competitor above any other. When Auric Co. was listed as a primary competitor, Besco was most commonly listed as the second competitor in the account. Auric

3 Co. also benefited in at least five deals by gaining referrals from their partners, and from exploiting customer references. This mirrors information gained in the previous quarter from a separate set of reps. Developing better relationships with influencers (e.g. partners, analysts, or customer references) is strongly suggested to counter this. Auric won a majority of the reported deals where they were the primary competitor (22 deals out of 40). Your organization won 16 of these 40 deals, with 2 deals being deferred. Would recommend developing case studies around the deals where you beat Auric Co. (i.e. Auric was listed as first, second, or third competitor) to aid in future sales. After Auric, the next primary competitors were Ixtal, Besco, HAL, and newmarketing, each listed as the primary competitor in only 5%-9% of deals. The other category of competitor showed three competitive deals against excommerce, two of which were wins. The rest of the other competitors were one-offs or in-house development. None (or a variant) showed up as the primary competitor in fifteen deals. One of these cases was a prospecting opportunity; the others (all wins excepting two deferrals) were upsells or other situations where the relationship was such that no competition was introduced. This is good. Healthcare/Life Sciences appears to be an increasingly important segment. In addition to the deals that were explicitly labeled Healthcare, a number of additional deals were in Pharmaceuticals. This quarter showed a good balance across product lines. Again, the WorkHorse solution was the product involved in most deals, and was included in 31% of the opportunities as the primary product. The Connexxtions product was second, listed as the primary product in 18% of the deals. Seven products in the product portfolio were not listed as the primary product in any of the listed deals. Summary graphs of the survey responses follow, as well as details on customer feedback and detailed feedback from the sales force.

4 survey results summary

5 QUESTION: Did we win or lose? Win 6 Lose 5 Deal slipped out of quarter 2 QUESTION: Who did we compete against? SAP Oracle 6 6 Microsoft / Great Plains 4 Lawson Baan 1 1 Other0 QUESTION: What product(s) were included in the deal? HR 7 Financials 2 Manufacturing 4 Supply Chain Planning 2 CRM 0 E-Commerce 2 Other 0

6 QUESTION: Who did we partner with on this deal? No Partner 7 Accenture0 KPMG 3 EDS 1 IBM Global Services 2 Other0 QUESTION: What criteria did the prospect use in this selection? Technical Fit 4 Size of Vendor 2 Financial Stability of Vendor 1 Features 4 ROI 3 Successful Implementations 5 Ease of Use 3 Vision 2 Price 5 References 6 Integration Capabilities 1 Other 3

7 Customer: Marian Webster Company: Circuit Warehouse Sales Rep: Tom Adamson Industry: Retail Southern Europe Customer's Role: Business Problem: ROI Driver: IT Looking at upgrading existing solution. Current system was reaching end of life. Had to do it. Chosen Solution: Other, Please Specify TEI Commerce Why they chose the winning solution: Competitor 1: Competitor 2 : Had an existing relationship with TEI Commerce. Although they were looking, TEI was 'VERY aggressive' in retaining the business. Us Professionalism: 4 Technical Capabilities: 4 Price: 5 Standards of note: not asked Selection Criteria 1: Price Selection Criteria 2: Other, Please Specify Conversion impact from existing system Selection Criteria 3: Product 1: Product 2: Product 3: Supply Chain System Integrator: Things We Did Well: None noted by customer Things We Could Do Better: None noted by customer [If a loss]what could we have done to win the deal: 'Nothing you really could have done to win the deal.'

8 Customer: Marian Webster Company: Circuit Warehouse Sales Rep: Tom Adamson Industry: Retail Southern Europe Quote: n/a Other Comments: NOTE: Since this customer already had TEI Commerce in house, this may have been a case where we were 'column fodder,' or perhaps were being used as a negotiating counterpoint against TEI Commerce. Ok to share info? Do they need a Rep to call? Customer openly shared information No

9 Customer: Daniel Wilson Company: SRL Americas Sales Rep: Jonathan Leonca Industry: Consumer Goods US-Southeast Customer's Role: Business Problem: ROI Driver: Chosen Solution: Why they chose the winning solution: Competitor 1: Competitor 2 : ebusiness Coordinator Reduction of overall costs is primary area. Believes he'll find benefit in reduced costs. Looking to consolidate down to a single vendor. Had been working with our competitor Besco, as well as Plexsoft, and others, and wanted to bring everything together. Ours Didn't want to lose any quality of service. He believed our solution could reduce his overall costs. Besco Auric Professionalism: 4 Technical Capabilities: 4 Price: 4 Standards of note: UBC Selection Criteria 1: Price Selection Criteria 2: Other, Please Specify Ability to consolidate down to one vendor Selection Criteria 3: Product 1: Product 2: Product 3: System Integrator: References Financials HR Customer will perform work themselves Things We Did Well: Worked well with his people. Took the ball, and followed through. Did what we said we would do. Things We Could Do Better: Nothing in particular. [If a loss]what could we have done to win the deal: n/a

10 Customer: Daniel Wilson Company: SRL Americas Sales Rep: Jonathan Leonca Industry: Consumer Goods US-Southeast Quote: n/a Other Comments: None noted Ok to share info? Do they need a Rep to call? Customer openly shared information No

11 Customer: Josh Hall Company: Eltrada Sales Rep: Jonathan Leonca Industry: Automotive US-Southeast Customer's Role: Business Problem: ROI Driver: Chosen Solution: Why they chose the winning solution: Competitor 1: Competitor 2 : IT A solution was already inhouse, and Josh inherited it when he arrived. In process of moving over to a new ERP, and was looking for a better solution that worked with it. In house development Mandate from the parent organization. Primary drivers seemed to be cost and experience with their existing solution. Integration with ERP. Us Auric Professionalism: 5 Technical Capabilities: 5 Price: 4 Standards of note: All of customers are using Selection Criteria 1: Other, Please Specify Pressure from corporate Selection Criteria 2: Selection Criteria 3: Product 1: Product 2: Product 3: System Integrator: Price HR Financials Customer will perform work themselves Things We Did Well: Thought we were very quick to respond to questions and concerns, if we didn't know the answer, got a tech. Thought the software itself was very robust, and would be very useful had they chosen it. Things We Could Do Better: None. [If a loss]what could we have done to win the deal: Probably not. Josh did like the solution and the offer, but the decision was frowned upon by the powers that be overseas. They weren't excited about an external party having access to ERP.

12 Customer: Josh Hall Company: Eltrada Sales Rep: Jonathan Leonca Industry: Automotive US-Southeast Quote: n/a Other Comments: None noted. Ok to share info? Do they need a Rep to call? Customer openly shared information No

13 Customer: Marie Guenther Company: Stellar Sales Rep: Jonathan Leonca Industry: Construction US-Central Customer's Role: Business Problem: ROI Driver: Chosen Solution: Why they chose the winning solution: Competitor 1: Competitor 2 : IT A solution has been a part of the organization for a while. Recently engagement was for additional professional services work. Decision was to go directly to our organization to source this; the customer didn't look at alternatives. n/a Ours Needed the work done, and we were already there. Professionalism: 5 Technical Capabilities: 5 Price: 3 Standards of note: none Selection Criteria 1: Other, Please Specify Existing relationship with us Selection Criteria 2: Selection Criteria 3: Product 1: Product 2: Product 3: HR System Integrator: Other, Please Specify Us Things We Did Well: Most recent services were onsite upgrades from old version to current version of HR module. Consultant was someone who 'explained everything, and worked very well with operations.' According to the customer, the consultant 'did a lot more than what was contracted.' He added, 'we were very pleased.' Things We Could Do Better: Nothing noted. [If a loss]what could we have done to win the deal:

14 Customer: Marie Guenther Company: Stellar Sales Rep: Jonathan Leonca Industry: Construction US-Central Quote: 'We were very pleased. They did much more than was contracted for.' THIS IS _APPROVED_ by the customer, and the customer would be an excellent reference. Other Comments: Overall, very, very pleased. The consultant recommended fixing some configuration settings that weren't exactly _broken_, but not 'efficient.' The consultant asked if the customer wanted those fixed, and then fixed them. IMPORTANT: The customer is currently looking at contracting for additional services, and is talking to us. And the customer felt it was 'not _troubling_, but...'not very efficient' to have one sales rep for services, and one for product, and one for other solutions. Although according to him, 'it's all straightened out now,' he _really_ would have liked to have a single point of contact to work with from us, instead of having to figure out and learn how to navigate the sales organization to get his needs met. This is a _great_ example of a customer where they have had good service, their expectations have not only been met, but _surpassed_, and that has resulted in a long term relationship. Ok to share info? Do they need a Rep to call? Customer openly shared information Yes

15 customer and prospect feedback