Opportunity Win · Sales · sample · sample data · one page, one owner

The opportunity plan.

“Commit your work to the Lord, and your plans will be established.”Proverbs 16:3

Opp IDOP-2611Date / rev.02/11/2026 · v3Sales execSales executivePMProject manager

Before any price

Your word is a duty of state: win on value, never on what you cannot deliver. If this deal needs a half-truth, it is a no-go. Duties of state

The path of the opportunity

Tick one. The path decides which sections are required.

A · Standard offer

A catalog product or service at list price. Quote and deliver.

Skip: CTQ and appendices · fast PDCA

B · Standard + adaptation

A base offer covers ~80%; we adapt the ~20% gap.

Required: CTQ for the 20% we adapt

C · Designed to order

Designed for this client. Full DFSS discipline.

Required: CTQ + appendix A (QFD) + B (MOU)

Qualification · BANT

Score each 0–25. Evidence beats opinion: who said it, in which document.

Criterion	Question	Evidence	Score	Gap · next step
Budget	Funded? Amount? Who releases it?	2027 sales-training budget: $95K; the CFO releases it.	21 /25	Confirm the split between Q1 and Q2
Authority	Economic buyer named and met? Decision process mapped?	National sales manager, met twice; decides with HR and finance.	19 /25	Meet the CFO with the value case
Need	A compelling reason to act? The cost of doing nothing?	Win rate fell from 31% to 22% in a year; each point is worth $180K in sales.	24 /25	—
Timeline	Decision and start tied to a business event?	Decision on 20/01/2027; start at the March sales convention.	20 /25	Lock the pilot date

BANT = 84 % ≥ 75% pursue · 50–74% nurture · < 50% no-go

Profile and critical pains

Up to 3 pains, in the client’s words. If it has no $, it is not critical.

OpportunityNational sales programClientRegional pharmacy chain · 6 citiesVerticalRetail · healthEst. revenue$96KDecision date20/01/2027

#	Critical pain · client words	Business impact · KPI	Cost of pain / yr	Priority
1	“Our salespeople visit, but they don’t close.”	Win rate 22% (was 31%)	$ $1.6M	HML
2	“New hires take six months to sell.”	Ramp-up time: 6 months	$ $420K	HML
3	“Every city sells differently.”	Win rate by city: 14–35%	$ $300K	HML

Stages · each one has one exit output

No output, no stage passed. The exits are your leading indicators; the purchase order is the lagging one.

1 · Prospecting

Contact made · pain hypothesis

10% · due 15/09 · ✓ passed

2 · Qualification

BANT ≥ 75% · go / no-go

20% · due 06/10 · ✓ passed

3 · Needs analysis

Pains quantified · scope agreed

30% · due 28/10 · ✓ passed

4 · Value proposition

Value case and CTQs accepted

50% · due 20/11 · ● in progress

5 · Proposal

Priced at GM% ≥ floor

75% · due 05/12 · ○

6 · Close

PO received · won / lost

90% · due 20/01 · ○

Competition vs. our value

Win on value, not on price. CTQ not required for path A.

Competitor · what they offer

NameInternational sales consultancy

OfferA standard 2-day online course

Price position−30% vs. us

Strength · weaknessBrand, price · not measured in sales

Our value · why we win

Differentiator90 days, measured in their CRM, 50% paid on results

Pain # solved1, 2 and 3

Value to client $/yr$540K (+3 points of win rate)

Proof · caseA distributor, 2026: 18% → 27% in 90 days

CTQ · need → measure → target

1Close more → win rate → +5 points in 90 days

2See progress → CRM board → 6 indicators

3Same everywhere → gap between cities → ≤ 8 points

Deal economics

The three numbers that decide the deal are highlighted.

Price

$96K

Total cost

$58K

GM %

39.6 %

(price − cost) ÷ price

GM % floor

35 %

policy

Prob. to win

67 %

BANT% × position

Value ÷ price

5.6 ×

client value ÷ price

Weighted GM $

$25.5K

rev × GM% × PWin

Team · RACI · actions

One next action per person. Review on Monday, check said vs. done on Friday — two phone reminders.

Role	R · A · C · I	Next action	Due	Status
Project manager	A	Project plan and gate calendar	08/11	●
Sales executive	R	Value case with the CFO	12/11	●
Solution specialist	R	QFD session with the client (appendix A)	10/11	●
Delivery · operations	C	Pilot program for one city	18/11	●
Pricing · finance	C	Check GM% with partner costs	15/11	●
Partner	I	Learning-platform quote	14/11	●

Decision Pursue Nurture No-go · Approved by Founder Date 02/11/2026

Before signing, discern: would I make this same deal if the client saw all my numbers? If not, change the deal — not the story.

Opportunity Win · Sales · sample · sample data · appendix A · path C

From client needs to design targets.

“Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them.”Matthew 7:12

Voice of the customer → CTQ (QFD)

Path C only, during needs analysis — about 30 minutes with the solution specialist, before any design work.

What: up to 6 needs in the client’s own words (from the pains in §3).
Importance: the client rates each 1–5. Do not guess it.
How: turn each need into a measurable CTQ you can design and test.
Relationship: 9 strong · 3 medium · 1 weak. Score = Σ importance × relationship.
Focus: the top 3 CTQs get design effort first; copy them to §5.

Client need (what)	Imp. 1–5	CTQ 1	CTQ 2	CTQ 3	CTQ 4	CTQ 5
1. “Close more, not another course”	5	9				3
2. “Don’t take them off the road”	4		9
3. “New hires selling sooner”	4	3		9
4. “Every city selling the same”	3	3			9
5. “See progress in our CRM”	5	3				9
6. “City managers keep it going”	4				3	3
CTQ name		Win rate	Hours off the road	Ramp-up time	Gap between cities	CRM board
Unit		points	h / month	months	points	indicators
Target		+5	≤ 4	3	≤ 8	6
Spec limits		≥ +3	≤ 6	≤ 4	≤ 10	≥ 5
Score Σ		81	36	36	39	72
Rank		1	4	5	3	2
Competitor		not measured	16	6	not measured	0

DFSS gates · DMADV

A gate passes only when the evidence exists. If the answer is no, hold.

Phase	Question to pass	Evidence	Owner	Gate
Define	Is the reason to act clear and the MOU (appendix B) signed?	MOU signed 28/10	Sales exec	Pass Hold
Measure	Does every need have a CTQ with a target and limits?	QFD complete 30/10	Specialist	Pass Hold
Analyze	Have we compared design options and listed the top risks?	3 program designs compared · A3	PM	Pass Hold
Design	Is the chosen design documented and costed?	Pilot for one city, due 18/11	Delivery	Pass Hold
Verify	Does the design meet every CTQ at an approved GM%?	Proposal at 39.6% GM, due 05/12	Finance	Pass Hold

Top design risks

Only the risks that could kill the margin or the schedule. Three at most.

#	Risk · what could go wrong	Likelihood	GM $ at risk	Mitigation · owner
1	The March convention moves earlier	HML	$ 8K	Plan B: virtual start · PM
2	The client’s CRM does not export data	HML	$ 6K	Export test in November · specialist
3	High turnover of salespeople	HML	$ 10K	Recorded onboarding module · delivery

Opportunity Win · Sales · sample · sample data · appendix B · path C

The scope agreement.

“Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’.”Matthew 5:37

The agreement

Grey text explains each line.

Most margin leaks on designed-to-order work come from unclear scope. This page makes it explicit before design starts.
The sales executive fills it with the client; the solution specialist checks the technical lines; the PM tracks the signature.
Plain language the buyer can sign without a lawyer. Non-binding except confidentiality.
No signature, no design work. Any later change goes through change control: re-costed and re-priced.

Item	Agreed content
PartiesClient, our company, partners	The pharmacy chain (client) · our school · a learning-platform partner
PurposeThe business problem we solve (pains in §3)	Raise the win rate and shorten ramp-up (pains 1 and 2)
In scopeDeliverables, quantities, places, services	A 90-day program for 120 salespeople and 6 city managers; CRM board; 2 follow-up sessions
Out of scopeWhat we will NOT do — protects the margin	Changes to the CRM, hiring, commission plans
Requirements baselineCTQs from appendix A	The 5 CTQs of appendix A, with targets and limits
AssumptionsInformation, access and approvals the client provides	Read-only CRM access; 2 hours a month per salesperson
Design deliverablesMaterials, guides; maximum review cycles	Program, city guides and board; 2 review rounds included
Acceptance criteriaHow the client confirms the CTQs are met	Win rate measured in the CRM at day 90 against the October baseline
Change controlHow scope changes are requested and priced	Written request → re-price within 5 business days
MilestonesScope sign-off · design · proposal · decision	Scope 28/10 · pilot 18/11 · proposal 05/12 · decision 20/01
Commercial termsFees, credit on award, validity	$96K: 50% at start, 50% on reaching +3 points; the $6K diagnosis is credited on award
Confidentiality · IPWho owns the design and the materials	CRM data stays confidential; the method and materials are ours, licensed for their use

Signatures

By signing, the parties confirm this scope as the basis for design, costing and pricing.

Client

Signature signed

Name · title National sales manager

Date 28/10/2026

Our company

Signature signed

Name · title Founder

Date 28/10/2026

Partner, if any

Signature signed

Name · title Learning-platform partner

Date 29/10/2026