Appearance on the Metrics That Measure Up Podcast

“Measure or measure not.  There is no try.”

— My response to being called the Yoda of SaaS metrics.

Just a quick post to highlight my recent appearance on the Metrics That Measure Up podcast, hosted by Ray Rike, founder and CEO of RevOps^2, a firm focused on SaaS metrics and benchmarking.

Ray’s a great guy, passionate about metrics, unafraid of diving into the details, and the producer of a great metrics-focused podcast that has featured many quality guests including Bryon Deeter, Tom Reilly, David Appel, Elay Cohen, Mark Petruzzi / Paul Melchiorre, Sally Duby, Amy Volas, and M.R. Rangaswami.

In the episode, Ray and I discuss:

  • Top SaaS metrics — e.g., annual recurring revenue (ARR), ARR growth, net dollar retention (NDR), net promoter score (NPS), employee NPS, and customer acquisition cost (CAC) ratio
  • How metrics vary with scale
  • Avoiding survivor bias, both in calculating churn rates and in comparisons to public comparison benchmarks (comps) [1]
  • How different metrics impact the enterprise value to revenue (EV/R) multiple — and a quick place to examine those correlations (i.e., the Meritech comps microsite).
  • Win rates and milestone vs. cohort analysis
  • Segmenting metrics, such as CAC and LTV/CAC, and looking at sales CAC vs. marketing CAC.
  • Blind adherence to metrics and benchmarks
  • Consumption-based pricing (aka, usage-based pricing)
  • Career advice for would-be founders

If you enjoy this episode I’m sure you’ll enjoy Ray’s whole podcast, which you can find here.

# # #

Notes

[1] Perhaps more availability bias (or, as Ray calls it, selection bias) than survivor bias, but either way, a bias to understand.

Navel Gazing, Market Research, and the Hypothesis File

Ask most startups about their go-to-market (GTM) these days and they’ll give you lots of numbers.  Funnel metrics.  MQLs, SQLs, demos, and associated funnel conversion rates.  Seen over time, cut by segment.  Win/loss rates and close rates as well, similarly sliced.  Maybe an ABM scorecard, if applicable.

Or maybe more financial metrics like customer acquisition cost (CAC) ratio, lifetime value (LTV) or net dollar retention (NDR) rate.  Maybe a Rule of 40 score to show how they’re balancing growth and profitability.

And then you’ll have a growth strategy conversation and you’ll hear things like:

  • People don’t know who we are
  • But the people who know us love us
  • We’re just not seeing enough deals
  • Actually, we are seeing enough deals, but we’re not making the short list enough
  • Or, we’re making the short list enough, but not winning enough.

And there are always reasons offered:

  • We’re not showing enough value
  • We’re not speaking to the economic buyer
  • We’re a vitamin, not a pain killer
  • We’re not aligned with their business priorities
  • People don’t know you can solve problem X with our solution
  • Prospects can’t see any differentiation among the offerings; we all sound the same [3]
  • They don’t see us as a leader
  • They don’t know they need one
  • They know they need one but need to finish higher priorities first

It’s an odd situation.  We are literally drowning in funnel data, but when it comes to actually understanding what’s happening, we know almost nothing.  Every one of the above explanatory assertions are assumptions.   They’re aggregated anecdotes [4].  The CRM system can tell us a lot about what happens to prospects once they’re in our funnel, but

  1. We’re navel gazing.  We’re only looking at that portion of the market we engaged with.  It’s humbling to take those assertions and mentally preface them with:  “In that slice of the market who found us and engaged with us, we see XYZ.”  We’re assuming our slice is representative.  If you’re a early-stage or mid-stage startup, there’s no reason to assume that.  It’s probably not.
  2. Quantitative funnel analysis is far better at telling you what happened than why it happened.  If only 8% of our stage 2 opportunities close within 6 quarters, well, that’s a fact [5].  But companies don’t even attempt to address most of the above explanatory assertions in their CRM, and even those times when they do (e.g., reason codes for lost deals), the data is, in my experience, usually junk [6].  And even on the rare occasion when it’s not junk, it’s still the salesrep’s opinion as to what happened and the salesrep is not exactly an unbiased observer [7].

What’s the fix here?  We need to go old school.  Let’s complement that wonderful data we have from the CRM with custom market research, that costs maybe $30K to $50K, and that we run maybe 1-2x/year and ideally right before our strategic planning process starts [8].  Better yet, as we go about our business, every time someone says something that sounds like a fact but is really an assumption, let’s put it into a “hypothesis file” that becomes a list of a questions that we want answered headed into our strategic and growth planning.

After all, market research can tell us:

  • If people are aware of us, but perhaps don’t pick us for the long list because they have a negative opinion of us
  • How many deals are happening per quarter and what percent of those deals we are in
  • Who the economic buyer is and ergo if we are speaking to them
  • What the economic buyer’s priorities are and if we are aligning to them
  • When features are most important to customers shopping in the category
  • What problems-to-be-solved (or use-cases) they associate with the category
  • Perceived differences among offerings in the category
  • Satisfaction with various offerings with the category
  • If and when they intend to purchase in the category
  • And much more

Net — I think companies should:

  • Keep instilling rigor and discipline around their pipeline and funnel
  • Complement that information with custom market research, run maybe 1-2x/year
  • Drive that research from a list of questions, captured as they appear in real time and prompted by observing that many of these assertions are hypotheses, not facts — and that we can and should test them with market research.

 

# # #

Notes

[1] As many people use “demo” as a sales process stage.  Not one I’m particularly fond of [2], I might add, but I do see a lot of companies using demo as an intermediate checkpoint between sales-accepted opportunity and closed deal — e.g., “our demo-to-close rate is X%”

[2] I’m not fond of using demo as a stage for two reasons:  it’s vendor-out, not customer-in and it assumes demo (or worse yet, a labor-intensive custom demo) is what’s required as proof for the customer when many alternatives may be what they want — e.g., a deep dive, customer references, etc.  The stage, looking outside-in, is typically where the customer is trying to answer either (a) can this solve my problem or (b) of those that can solve my problem is this the one I want to use?

[3] This is likely true, by the way.  In most markets, the products effectively all look the same to the buyer!  Marketing tries to accentuate differentiation and sales tries to make that accentuated differentiation relevant to the problem at hand, but my guess is more often than not product differentiation is the explanation for the selection, but not the actual driver — which might rather be things like safety / mistake aversion, desire to work with a particular vendor / relationship, word of mouth recommendations, belief that success is more likely with vendor X than vendor Y even if vendor X may (perhaps, for now) have an inferior product)

[4] As the saying goes, the plural of anecdote is not data.

[5] And a potentially meaningless one if you don’t have good discipline around stages and pipeline.

[6] I don’t want to be defeatist here, but most startups barely have their act together on defining and enforcing / scrubbing basics like stages and close dates.  Few have well thought-out reason codes.

[7] If one is the loneliest number, salespersonship is the loneliest loss reason code.

[8] The biggest overlooked secret in making market research relevant to your organization — by acting on it — is strategically timing its arrival.  For example, win/loss reports that arrive just in time for a QBR are way more relevant than those that arrive off-operational-cycle.

A Ten-Point Sales Management Framework for Enterprise SaaS Startups

In this post, I’ll present what I view as the minimum sales management framework for an enterprise SaaS startup — i.e., the basics you should have covered as you seek to build and scale your sales organization [1].

  1. Weekly sheet
  2. Pipeline management rules, with an optional stage matrix
  3. Forecasting rules
  4. Weekly forecast calls
  5. Thrice-quarterly pipeline scrubs
  6. Deal reviews
  7. Hiring profiles
  8. Onboarding program
  9. Quarterly metrics
  10. Gong

Weekly Sheet
A weekly sheet, such as the one used here, that allows you to track, communicate, and intelligently converse about the forecast and its evolution.  Note this is the sheet I’d use for the CEO’s weekly staff meeting.  The CRO will have their own, different one for the sales team’s weekly forecast call.

Pipeline Management Rules with Optional Stage Matrix
This is a 2-3 page document that defines a sales opportunity and the key fields associated with one, including:

  • Close date (e.g., natural vs. pulled-forward)
  • Value (e.g., socialized, placeholder, aspiration, upside)
  • Stage (e.g., solution fit, deep dive, demo, vendor of choice)
  • Forecast category (e.g., upside, forecast, commit)

Without these definitions in place and actively enforced, all the numbers in the weekly sheet are gobbledygook.  Some sales managers additionally create a one-page stage matrix that typically has the following rows:

  • Stage name (I like including numbers in stage names to accelerate conversations, e.g., s2+ pipeline or s4 conversion rate)
  • Definition
  • Mandatory actions (i.e., you can be fired for not doing these)
  • Recommended actions (i.e., to win deals we think you should be doing these)
  • Exit criteria

If your stage definitions are sufficiently simple and clear you may not need a stage matrix.  If you choose to create one, avoid these traps:  not enforcing mandatory actions (just downgrade them to recommended) and multiple and/or confusing exit criteria.  I’ve seen stage matrices where you could win the deal before completing all six of the stage-three exit criteria!

Forecasting Rules
A one-page document that defines how the company expects reps to forecast.  For example, I’d include:

  • Confidence level (i.e., the percent of the time you are expected to hit your forecast)
  • Cut rules (e.g., if you cut your forecast, cut it enough so the next move is up — aka, the always-be-upsloping rule.)
  • Timing rules (e.g., if you can forecast next-quarter deals in this quarter’s forecast)
  • Management rules (e.g., whether managers should bludgeon reps into increasing their forecast)

Weekly Forecast Calls
A weekly call with the salesreps to discuss their forecasts.  Much to my horror, I often need to remind sales managers that these calls should be focused on the numbers — because many salespeople seem to love to talk about everything but.

For accountability reasons, I like people saying things that are already in Salesforce and that I could theoretically just read myself.  Thus, I think these calls should sound like:

Manager:  Kelly, what are you calling for the quarter?
Kelly:  $450K
Manager:  What’s that composed of?
Kelly:  Three deals.  A at $150K, B at $200K, and C at $100K.
Manager:  Do you have any upside?
Kelly:  $150K.  I might be able to pull deal D forward.

I dislike storytelling on forecast calls (e.g., stories about what happened at the account last week).  If you want to focus on how to win a given deal, let’s do that in a deal review.  If we want to examine the state of a rep’s pipeline, let’s do that in a pipeline scrub.  On a forecast call, let’s forecast.

I cannot overstate the importance of separating these three types of meetings. Pipeline scrubs are about scrubbing, deal reviews are about winning, and forecast calls are about forecasting.  Blend them at your peril.

Thrice-Quarterly Pipeline Scrubs
A call focused solely on reviewing all the opportunities in the sales pipeline.  The focus should be on verification:

  • Are all the opportunities actually valid in accordance with our definition of a sales opportunity?
  • Are the four key fields (close date, value, stage, forecast category) properly and accurately completed?
  • All means all.  While we can put more focus on this-quarter and next-quarter pipeline, we need to review the entire thing to ensure that reps aren’t dumping losses in out-quarters or using fake oppties to squat on accountants.

I like when these calls are done in small groups (e.g., regions) with each rep taking their turn in the hot seat.  Too large a group wastes everyone’s time.  Too small forgoes a learning opportunity, where reps can learn by watching the scrubs of other reps.

As a non-believer in alleged continuous scrubbing, I like doing these scrubs in weeks 2, 5, and 8 so the data presented to the executive staff is clean in weeks 3, 6, and 9.  See this threepart series for more.

Deal Reviews
As a huge fan of Selling Through Curiosity, I believe a salesperson’s job is to ask great questions that both reveal what’s happening in the account and lead the customer in our direction.  Accordingly, I believe that a sales manager’s job is to ask great questions that help salesreps win deals.  That is the role of deal review.

A deal review is a separate meeting from a pipeline scrub or a forecast call, and focused on one thing:  winning.  What do we need to learn or do to win a given deal?  As such,

  • It’s a typically a two-hour meeting
  • Run by sales management, but in a peer-to-peer format (meaning multiple reps attend and reps ask each other questions)
  • Where a handful of reps volunteer to present their deals and be questioned about them
  • And the focus is on asking reps (open-ended) questions that will help them win their deals

Examples:

  • What questions can you ask that will reveal more about the evaluation process?
  • Why do you think we are vendor of choice?
  • What are the top reasons the customer wouldn’t select us and how are we proactively addressing them?
  • How would we know if we were actually in first place in the evaluation process?

Hiring Profiles
A key part of building an enterprise SaaS company is proving the repeatability of your sales process.  While I have also written a threepost series on that topic, the TLDR summary is that proving repeatability begins with answering this question:

Can you hire a standard rep and onboard them in a standard way to reliably produce a standard result?

The first step is defining a hiring profile, a one-page document that outlines what we’re looking for when we hire new salesreps.  While I like this expressed in a specific form, the key points are that:

  • It’s specific and clear — so we can know when we’ve found one and can tell recruiters if they’re producing pears when we asked for apples.
  • There’s a big enough “TAM” so we can scale — e.g., if the ideal salesrep worked at some niche firm that only had 10 salespeople, then we’re going to have trouble scaling our organization.

Onboarding Program
The second key element of repeatability is onboarding.  Startups should invest early in building and refining a standard onboarding program that ideally includes:

  • Pre-work (e.g., a reading list, videos)
  • Class time (e.g., a 3-5 day live program with a mix of speakers)
  • Homework (e.g., exercises to reinforce learnings)
  • Assessment (e.g., a final exam, group exercise)
  • Mentoring (e.g., an assigned mentor for 3-6 months)
  • Reinforcement (e.g., quarterly update training)

In determining whether all this demonstrates a standard result, this chart can be helpful.

Quarterly Metrics
Like all functions, sales should participate in an estaff-level quarterly business review (QBR), presenting an update with a high-quality metrics section, presented in a consistent format.  Those metrics should typically include:

  • Performance by segment (e.g., region, market)
  • Average sales cycle (ASC) and average sales price (ASP) analysis
  • Pipeline conversion analysis, by segment
  • Next-quarter pipeline analysis, by segment
  • Customer expansion analysis
  • Win/loss analysis off the CRM system, often complemented by a separate quarterly third-party study of won and lost deals
  • Rep ramping and productivity-capacity analysis (e.g., RREs)

Gong
As someone who prides himself on never giving blanket advice: everybody should use Gong.

I think it’s an effective and surprisingly broad tool that helps companies in ways both tactical and strategic from note-taking to coaching to messaging to sales enablement to alerting to management to forecasting to generally just connecting the executive staff to what actually happens in the trenches — Gong is an amazing tool that I think can benefit literally every SaaS sales organization.

# # #

Notes
[1] This post assumes the existence of functioning upstream work and processes, including (a) an agreement about goals for percentage of pipeline from the four pipeline sources (marketing, SDR/out, sales/out, and partners), (b) a philosophically aligned marketing department, (c) good marketing planning, such as the use of an inverted funnel model, (d) good sales planning, such as the use of a bookings capacity model, and (e) proper pipeline management as discussed in this threepart series.

The Product Superpowers That Few Flex: Join Special Guest Brett Queener on the SaaS Product Power Breakfast

Please join Thomas Otter and me this Thursday, May 6th at 8:00 am Pacific for the SaaS Product Power Breakfast on Clubhouse with special guest Brett Queener, partner at Bonfire Ventures, former President & COO at SmartRecruiters, product-line general manager at both Salesforce.com and Siebel, and member of the board of directors at Aforza, Atrium, ClearedIn, Cube, Invoca, Lytics, Pendo, SmartRecruiters, and Spekit.

Our topic will be The Product Superpowers That Few Flex:  Intention and Conviction.

We aim to cover the following questions:

  • What was it like running product for Marc Benioff?  (Or, for that matter, Tom Siebel?)
  • What do you look for when evaluating products for seed-stage investments?
  • Cadence:  daily / monthly / quarterly releases — which is best and why?
  • What in your mind is a world-class product manager?
  • How is the role of product decisioning changing?
  • In a product-led growth (PLG) world, does product own growth?
  • What’s a feature and not a company?

With Brett, the action is sure to be cutting, frank, insightful, fast-paced — and funny.  Content warning:  when Brett and I get together, the errant F-bomb has been known to drop, so this may be our first R-rated episode.

Bring a friend — it should be a crackling session.  If you need a Clubhouse invite, ask.  And for those who can’t make it live, the SaaS Product Power Breakfast is now available in podcast form, so it will be recorded and you can always listen to it later.

See you there!

Using This/Next/All-Quarter Analysis To Understand Your Pipeline

This is the third in a three-post series focused on forecasting and pipeline.  Part I examined triangulation forecasts to improve forecast accuracy and enable better conversations about the forecast.  After a review of pipeline management fundamentals, part II discussed the use of to-go pipeline coverage to provide clarity on how your pipeline is evolving across the weeks of the quarter.  In this, part III, we’ll introduce what I call this/next/all-quarter pipeline analysis as a way of looking at the entire pipeline that is superior to annual or rolling four-quarter pipeline analysis.

Let’s start by unveiling the last block on the sheet we’ve been using the previous two posts.  Here’s the whole thing:

You’ll see two new sections added:  next-quarter pipeline and all-quarters [1] pipeline.  Here’s what we can do when we see all three of them, taken together:

  • We can see slips.  For example, in week 3 while this-quarter pipeline dropped by $3,275K, next-quarter pipeline increased by $2,000K and all-quarters only dropped by $500K.  While there are many moving parts [2], this says to me that pipeline is likely sloshing around between quarters and not being lost.
  • We can see losses.  Similarly, when this-quarter drops, next-quarter is flat, and all-quarters drop, we are probably looking at deals lost from the pipeline [3].
  • We can see wins.  When you add a row at the bottom with quarter-to-date booked new ARR, if that increases, this-quarter pipeline decreases, next-quarter pipeline stays flat, and all-quarters pipeline decreases, we are likely looking at the best way of reducing pipeline:  by winning deals!
  • We can see how we’re building next-quarter’s pipeline.  This keeps us focused on what matters [4].  If you start every quarter with 3.0x coverage you will be fine in the long run without the risk of a tantalizing four-quarter rolling pipeline where overall coverage looks sufficient, but all the closeable deals are always two to four quarters out [5].

Tantalus and his pipeline where all the closeable deals are always two quarters out

  • We can develop a sense how next-quarter pipeline coverage develops over time and get better at forecasting day-1 next-quarter pipeline coverage, which I believe marketing should habitually do [6].
  • We can look at whether we have enough total pipeline to keep our salesreps busy by not just looking at the total dollar volume, but the total count of oppties.  I think this is the simplest and most intuitive way to answer that question.  Typically 15 to 20 all-quarters oppties is the maximum any salesrep can possibly juggle.
  • Finally, there’s nowhere to hide.  Companies that only examine annual or rolling four-quarter pipeline inadvertently turn their 5+ quarter pipeline into a dumping ground full of fake deals, losses positioned as slips, long-term rolling hairballs [7], and oppties used for account squatting.

I hope you’ve enjoyed this three-part series on forecasting and pipeline.  The spreadsheet used in the examples is available here.

# # #

Notes

[1] Apologies for inconsistences in calling this all-quarter vs. all-quarters pipeline.  I may fix it at some point, but first things first.  Ditto for the inconsistency on this-quarter vs. current-quarter.

[2] You can and should have your salesops leader do the deeper analysis of inflows (including new pipegen) and outflows, but I love the first-order simplicity of saying, “this-quarter dropped by $800K, next-quarter increased by $800K and all-quarters was flat, ergo we are probably sloshing” or “this-quarter dropped by $1M, next-quarter was flat, and all-quarters dropped by $1M, so we probably lost $1M worth of deals.”

[3] Lost here in the broad sense meaning deal lost or no decision (aka, derail).  In the former case, someone else wins the deal; in the latter case, no one does.

[4] How do you make 32 quarters in row?  One at a time.

[5] Tantalus was a figure in Greek mythology, famous for his punishment:  standing for eternity in a pool of water below a fruit tree where each time he ducked to drink the water it would recede and each time he reached for a fruit it was just beyond his grasp.

[6] Even though most companies have four different pipeline sources (marketing/inbound, SDR/outbound, sales/outbound, and partners), marketing should, by default, consider themselves the quarterback of the pipeline as they are usually the majority pipeline source and the most able to take corrective actions.

[7] By my definition a normal rolling hairball always sits in this quarter’s pipeline and slips one quarter every quarter.  A long-term rolling hairball is thus one that sits just beyond your pipeline opportunity scrutiny window (e.g., 5 quarters out) and slips one quarter every quarter.

 

Using To-Go Coverage to Better Understand Pipeline and Improve Forecasting

This is the second in a three-part series focused on forecasting and pipeline.  In part I, we examined triangulation forecasts with a detailed example.  In this, part II, we’ll discuss to-go pipeline coverage, specifically using it in conjunction with what we covered in part I.  In part III, we’ll look at this/next/all-quarter pipeline analysis as a simple way to see what’s happening overall with your pipeline.

Pipeline coverage is a simple enough notion:  take the pipeline in play and divide it by the target and get a coverage ratio.  Most folks say it should be around 3.0, which isn’t a bad rule of thumb.

Before diving in further, let’s quickly remind ourselves of the definition of pipeline:

Pipeline for a period is the sum of the value of all opportunities with a close date in that period.

This begs questions around definitions for opportunity, value, and close date which I won’t review here, but you can find discussed here.  The most common mistakes I see thinking about the pipeline are:

  • Turning 3.0x into a self-fulfilling prophecy by bludgeoning reps until they have 3.0x coverage, instead of using coverage as an unmanaged indicator
  • Not periodically scrubbing the pipeline according to a defined process and rules, deluding yourself into thinking “we’re always scrubbing the pipeline” (which usually means you never are).
  • Applying hidden filters to the pipeline, such as “oh, sorry, when we say pipeline around here we mean stage-4+ pipeline.”  Thus executives often don’t even understand what they’re analyzing and upstream stages turn into pipeline landfills full of junk opportunities that are left unmanaged.
  • Pausing sales hiring until the pipeline builds, effectively confusing cause and effect in how the pipeline gets built [1].
  • Creating opportunities with placeholder values that pollute the pipeline with fake news [1A], instead of creating them with $0 value until a salesrep socializes price with the customer [2].
  • Conflating milestone-based and cohort-based conversion rates in analyzing the pipeline.
  • Doing analysis primarily on either an annual or rolling four-quarter pipeline, instead of focusing first on this-quarter and next-quarter pipeline.
  • Judging the size of the all-quarter pipeline by looking at dollar value instead of opportunity count and the distribution of oppties across reps [2A].

In this post, I’ll discuss another common mistake, which is not analyzing pipeline on a to-go basis within a quarter.

The idea is simple:

  • Many folks run around thinking, “we need 3.0x pipeline coverage at all times!”  This is ambiguous and begs the questions “of what?” and “when?” [3]
  • With a bit more rigor you can get people thinking, “we need to start the quarter with 3.0x pipeline coverage” which is not a bad rule of thumb.
  • With even a bit more rigor that you can get people thinking, “at all times during the quarter I’d like to have 3.0x coverage of what I have left to sell to hit plan.” [4]

And that is the concept of to-go pipeline coverage [5].  Let’s look at the spreadsheet in the prior post with a new to-go coverage block and see what else we can glean.

Looking at this, I observe:

  • We started this quarter with $12,500 in pipeline and a pretty healthy 3.2x coverage ratio.
  • We started last quarter in a tighter position at 2.8x and we are running behind plan on the year [6].
  • We have been bleeding off pipeline faster than we have been closing business.  To-go coverage has dropped from 3.2x to 2.2x during the first 9 weeks of the quarter.  Not good.  [7]
  • I can easily reverse engineer that we’ve sold only $750K in New ARR to date [8], which is also not good.
  • There was a big drop in the pipeline in week 3 which makes me start to wonder what the gray shading means.

The gray shading is there to remind us that sales management is supposed to scrub the pipeline in weeks 2, 5, and 8 so that the pipeline data presented in weeks 3, 6, and 9 is scrubbed.  The benefits of this are:

  • It eliminates the “always scrubbing means never scrubbing” problem.
  • It draws a deadline for how long sales has to clean up after the end of a quarter:  the end of week 2.  That’s enough time to close out the quarter, take a few days rest, and then get back at it.
  • It provides a basis for snapshotting analytics.  Because pipeline conversion rates vary by week things can get confusing fast.  Thus, to keep it simple I base a lot of my pipeline metrics on week 3 snapshots (e.g., week 3 pipeline conversion rate) [9]
  • It provides an easy way to see if the scrub was actually done.  If the pipeline is flat in weeks 3, 6, and 9, I’m wondering if anyone is scrubbing anything.
  • It lets you see how dirty things got.  In this example, things were pretty dirty:  we bled off $3,275K in pipeline during the week 2 scrub which I would not be happy about.

Thus far, while this quarter is not looking good for SaaSCo, I can’t tell what happened to all that pipeline and what that means for the future.  That’s the subject of the last post in this three-part series.

A link to the spreadsheet I used in the example is here.

# # #

Notes

[1]  In enterprise SaaS at least, you should look at it the other way around:  you don’t build pipeline and then hire reps to sell it, you hire reps and then they build the pipeline, as the linked post discusses.

[1A]  The same is true of close dates.  For example, if you create opportunities with a close date that is 18+ months out, they can always be moved into the more current pipeline.  If you create them 9 months out and automatically assign a $150K value to each, you can end up with a lot air (or fake news/data) in your pipeline.

[2]  For benchmarking purposes, this creates the need for “implied pipeline” which replaces the $0 with a segment-appropriate average sales price (ASP) as most people tend to create oppties with placeholder values.  I’d rather see the “real” pipeline and then inflate it to “implied pipeline” — plus it’s hard to know if $150K is assigned to an oppty as a placeholder that hasn’t been changed or if that’s the real value assigned by the salesrep.

[2A] If you create oppties with a placeholder value then dollar pipeline is a proxy for the oppty count, but a far less intuitive one — e.g., how much dollar volume of pipeline can a rep handle?  Dunno.  How many oppties can they work on effectively at one time?  Maybe 15-20, tops.

[3] “Of what” meaning of what number?  If you’re looking at all-quarters pipeline you may have oppties that are 4, 6, or 8+ quarters out (depending on your rules) and you most certainly don’t have an operating plan number that you’re trying to cover, nor is coverage even meaningful so far in advance.  “When” means when in the quarter?  3.0x plan coverage makes sense on day 1; it makes no sense on day 50.

[4] As it turns out, 3.0x to-go coverage is likely an excessively high bar as you get further into the quarter.  For example, by week 12, the only deals still forecast within the quarter should be very high quality.  So the rule of thumb is always 3.0x, but you can and should watch how it evolves at your firm as you get close to quarter’s end.

[5]  In times when the forecast is materially different from the plan, separating the concepts of to-go to forecast and to-go to plan can be useful.  But, by default, to-go should mean to-go to plan.

[6] I know this from the extra columns presented in the screenshot from the same sheet in the previous post.  We started this quarter at 96% of the ARR plan and while the never explicitly lists our prior-quarter plan performance, it seems a safe guess.

[7]  If to-go coverage increases, we are closing business faster than we are losing it.  If to-go coverage decreases we are “losing” (broadly defined as slip, lost, no decision) business faster than we are closing it.  If the ratio remains constant we are closing business at the same ratio as we started the quarter at.

[8]  A good sheet will list this explicitly, but you can calculate it pretty fast.  If you have a pipeline of $7,000, a plan of $3,900, and coverage of 2.2x then:  7,000/2.2 (rounded) = 3,150 to go, with a plan of 3,900 means you have sold 750.

[9] An important metric that can be used as an additional triangulation forecast and is New ARR / Week 3 Pipeline.