Quoting Speed or Credit Check: Testing the Sponsor's Hypothesis
Northwind Logistics has approved a $180k CPQ replacement, sponsored by the VP of Sales. Discovery so far consists of one 90-minute session with six regional sales managers. All six name quoting speed as the top pain point, and the VP asks you to write requirements for one-click quoting, signed off in three weeks. Before drafting, you pull twelve weeks of CRM data: median quote turnaround is 4.2 days, but 61% of that elapsed time is waiting on a Finance-owned credit check, not rep data entry. 38% of quotes are revised at least twice, mostly for discount approvals. Two of the six managers have not closed a deal in the past year, and no Finance staff were in the session.
1. What is the most significant weakness in the discovery done so far, and what would you do in the next two weeks?
Read the worked answer
The discovery has a single-source problem: one stakeholder group, one session, no observation of the actual process, and no Finance representation despite Finance owning most of the elapsed time.
What I would do in the next two weeks:
- Observe, don't just ask. Shadow five reps across at least two regions through a complete quote-to-order cycle and time each step. Stated pain points and observed bottlenecks frequently diverge.
- Interview Finance (credit team lead, AR manager) about the credit check SLA, exception paths, and what they need from a quote record.
- Quantify the revision loop. Pull the 38% of revised quotes and categorise revision reasons. Discount approval is a workflow and policy problem, not necessarily a CPQ feature.
- Separate the problem statement from the solution. Write 'quote turnaround is 4.2 days, target 1.5' rather than 'we need one-click quoting'.
The VP's hypothesis may still be right, but right now it is untested. The risk of skipping this step is delivering a faster data-entry screen that leaves 61% of the delay untouched, with the budget already spent.
2. The VP insists on one-click quoting and wants requirements signed within three weeks. How do you respond without derailing the project?
Read the worked answer
Do not argue the solution; re-anchor on the outcome and make the trade-off explicit.
- Present the data neutrally in one page: current cycle time, where the time is spent, revision drivers, and the target metric.
- Offer options rather than a verdict: (A) one-click quote as specified - effect limited to the share of cycle time reps control; (B) quote plus a parallel credit pre-check - larger effect, requires Finance; (C) redesign the discount approval path - addresses the 38% revision rate with no CPQ build at all.
- Protect the date by scoping discovery to what fits: five shadowing sessions, three Finance interviews, one data cut. Baseline with an explicit assumptions log covering what was not validated.
- Record the sponsor's decision and rationale in the decision log so the constraint stays visible if the outcome misses.
The goal is not to win the argument. It is that the sponsor chooses with the evidence in front of them and that residual risk is documented and owned by someone with the authority to accept it.