IntenseDebate - Justin Roff-Marsh

14 years ago @ Sales Process Engineering - Mixergy: Christmas tip... · 0 replies · +1 points

I know, I was in Aus when it happened ... but I think he's recovering now.

14 years ago @ Sales Process Engineering - The Machine > Part ... · 0 replies · +1 points

Quite true. However, I see these more as communication tools. �They work well enough if some state changes are implied by the activity descriptions. �They are not like (say) 'circuit diagrams' in this respect.

Even in this simplified form, they still frequently span multiple pages. Most of our clients have them on plotter paper -- sometimes covering entire walls!

14 years ago @ Sales Process Engineering - The Machine > Part ... · 0 replies · +1 points

I surely will!

14 years ago @ Sales Process Engineering - The Machine > Part ... · 0 replies · +1 points

Oh, and thank you for noticing the simplicity. �It takes a lot of work to produce workflows that are this simple. �But you don't really understand your environment until you do!

14 years ago @ Sales Process Engineering - The Machine > Part ... · 1 reply · +1 points

Definitely worth doing: but outside the scope of this book. �I'm already getting curry for making this too cerebral!

14 years ago @ Sales Process Engineering - The Machine > Part ... · 1 reply · +1 points

I don't understand what you're suggestion here. �Are you suggesting that the customer views the vendor as the vending machine? �That metaphor isn't really relevant to account-acquisition.

Justin

14 years ago @ Sales Process Engineering - The Machine > Part ... · 0 replies · +1 points

Another good suggestion, thank you. �I'll find a way to indicate who's on the other end of each transaction.

14 years ago @ Sales Process Engineering - The Machine > Part ... · 0 replies · +1 points

Raul

I actually considered that. �I was afraid I might be over-using them ... but you're right ... it makes the concepts less abstract.

I'll add one on the next go-around.

Justin

14 years ago @ Sales Process Engineering - The Machine > Part ... · 2 replies · +1 points

Giri

You're right. I should probably pull the argument forward. In fact, when the first draft is done, there'll be a few sections I need to rearrange. �That's why these comments are so valuable.

The reason I'm so down on the 'qualification' word is that 90% of the time it's done EXACTLY the same way: contact the prospect and determine if (a) they have the budget, and (b) they are in the process of buying. It's hard to use the term without telegraphing the impression that it's an endorsement of that totally dumb behavior.

If proper qualification is prioritization, I'd rather call it that. �'Qualification' implies a categorical approach: you're in; you're out. The prioritization of prospects (quick and dirty) is exactly what we want.

Thanks for your continuing input. �I owe you a book when this is done.

Justin

14 years ago @ Sales Process Engineering - The Machine > Part ... · 0 replies · +1 points

I do! Thank you, Raul.

I'll respond to your posts shortly.

Justin

IntenseDebate Comment System

Connect with Justin Roff-Marsh

My blogs/sites

People I'm following

Justin Roff-Marsh