Blog · Territory, capacity and quota planning
Classify independent, competing and complementary account-expansion offers. Compare feasible customer budget combinations before summing conditional opportunity values.
Three well-qualified offers at one customer can still describe only one purchasing decision. A premium replacement and its standard version are alternatives. Two new categories may fit separately but exceed a shared budget together. An expansion review needs to describe these relationships before summing opportunity values.
The expansion pipeline against whitespace joins opportunities to the account's measured gaps. This guide adds offer relationships and customer-side constraints after that basic reconciliation exists.
Give each offer an ID, account decision unit, scope, price basis, period and customer-confirmed need. Classify relationships as independent, mutually exclusive, dependent or unresolved. An unresolved relationship deserves a question; it should not default to independence.
A combined package needs links to the component offers it replaces. A premium service can be incremental to an existing base service, or can replace it entirely. State which before computing revenue. Otherwise a package price and its component prices can appear in the same total.
Use the account hierarchy to identify shared purchasing control. Separate sites do not create separate budgets when one central buyer makes the category decision.
The constraint may be the customer's budget, implementation time, available sites or an allowed number of simultaneous trials. Identify the source and whether the limit is confirmed, approximate or a seller assumption. Match the limit's currency and period to the offers.
Supplier selling capacity is a different constraint, covered by margin-and-capacity prioritization. An offer portfolio can fit the seller's hours but exceed the customer's budget. Review both without combining unlike units in one unexplained score.
Only use customer information that the customer is authorized to share. A hypothetical budget scenario can support discussion, but label it as such rather than implying visibility into private spending plans.
The following DEMO-301 scenario is invented. All offers cover the same annual period. The customer budget assumption is $60,000, and A and B are alternative versions of the same category.
| Offer | Annual price | Incremental contribution | Relationship |
|---|---|---|---|
| DEMO-A: standard category | $40,000 | $12,000 | Alternative to B |
| DEMO-B: premium category | $55,000 | $16,500 | Alternative to A |
| DEMO-C: additional service | $20,000 | $10,000 | Can accompany A or B |
The raw prices sum to $115,000, but that total includes competing alternatives. A plus C costs $60,000 and contributes $22,000 under the stated supplier cost assumptions. B alone costs $55,000 and contributes $16,500. B plus C exceeds the assumed budget at $75,000; A plus B is prohibited by their relationship.
Among the listed combinations, A plus C has the largest feasible contribution. That result does not establish customer preference or a win probability. If the premium requirement is mandatory, A becomes ineligible and the appropriate choice changes to B alone or a revised scope.
Distinguish quoted price, candidate revenue, incremental contribution and existing revenue being replaced. Use cross-sell and upsell measurement for the underlying revenue movement and whole-basket discount analysis when concessions affect current purchases.
Do not compare one offer's gross margin with another's contribution after service costs. Confirm which costs change under each combination. Shared setup costs should be counted once where genuinely shared; offer-specific costs should remain attached to their offers.
Publish the individual offers, their relationship IDs and a small number of feasible scenarios. Name the selected scenario and the reason, including unresolved evidence. Keep rejected alternatives available for a customer discussion instead of deleting the record.
When the customer changes the budget or specification, recalculate feasible combinations and preserve the former scenario. This records a changed assumption rather than an unexplained increase in the account's opportunity total.
The useful next action may be to confirm the premium requirement or ask whether the additional service shares the same budget. It is not always to prepare all proposals simultaneously. Read the offers beside the customer-growth review example so financial feasibility and source strength are visible together.
Bring an authorized account scenario to Covirage contact to agree the analytical views and review scope for your portfolio.
No. They may compete for one customer budget, require the same implementation resources or replace one another. Confirm their relationship before adding them.
Keep both as alternatives, but count only the selected package or its selected components in a scenario. Otherwise the same purchase appears twice.
No. Feasibility concerns whether the selected offers fit declared constraints. Demand, approval and actual purchasing remain conditional.