Blog · Territory, capacity and quota planning
Five checks a sales leader runs on a proposed territory design before it goes live, all from the ledger, the customer master and the universe file: potential balance across territories, load balance in weighted accounts, account continuity with the current owners, travel or cluster sanity where it applies, and the quota identity that the new map's quotas sum to the company's. Each with the test, the tolerance and the failure it catches.
A new territory map is drawn, argued over, and signed off on a feeling that it is fairer than the last one. Five checks from data the company already holds say whether it is, and where it is not. This guide sets out each check, the test, the tolerance, and what failing it costs.
| # | Check | Test | Tolerance | Failure it catches |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Potential balance | Largest territory potential ÷ smallest | Stated multiple, often 2 | A rep who cannot make number |
| 2 | Load balance | Weighted accounts per territory against the median | Within a stated band | A rep who cannot touch the book |
| 3 | Continuity | Share of revenue keeping its current owner | Above a stated floor | Relationships broken for tidiness |
| 4 | Cluster sanity | Accounts reachable by the rep, where in-person | Stated travel or region rule | The rep with accounts in three states |
| 5 | Quota identity | Σ new territory quotas = company quota | Exact | The plan that adds to more than the target |
Account and rep identifiers only.
Proposed map: twelve territories.
| Check | Result | Tolerance | Pass |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 Potential balance | Largest $11.5m, smallest $4.9m: 2.3× | 2× | Fail: T-04 too large, T-11 too small |
| 2 Load balance | Median 210; T-04 at 318, T-11 at 97 | ±25% | Fail: same two |
| 3 Continuity | 71% of revenue keeps its owner | 80% | Fail: 29% moved, $12m |
| 4 Cluster sanity | T-07 has 8 accounts over 300 miles from its rep | 0 | Fail: 8 accounts |
| 5 Quota identity | Σ quotas $48.6m; company $48.0m | Exact | Fail: $0.6m over |
Five fails on a map that felt fair. Every one is specific: two territories to rebalance against each other, twelve million dollars of moves to justify or reduce, eight accounts to reassign, and a quota sheet that adds to more than the target.
| Check | After moving 14 accounts from T-04 to T-11 and 8 from T-07 | Pass |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1.7× | Pass |
| 2 | T-04 at 240, T-11 at 175 | Pass |
| 3 | 74% | Fail, but stated: restructure, handover plan sized at $10m |
| 4 | 0 | Pass |
| 5 | $48.0m | Pass |
Four passes and one deliberate fail with a handover plan. That is a map that can be defended in January and in December.
Signed off on feel. The fails are discovered by the reps.
Checks one and three traded silently. Balance achieved by breaking every relationship.
Quota sheet built separately. It adds to more than the company can sell.
Checks run once. The map drifts; the checks are annual.
Mapped once, the proposed map, the current assignments, the ledger, the potentials, the tiers and the quotas produce the five checks and the second-pass comparison for any candidate map. Covirage builds this from the exports as they are. The territory planning solution describes the setup, and the territory potential guide covers the figure the first check depends on.
The largest territory's potential over the smallest's. Two is a common tolerance for territories intended to carry equal quotas. A map at four to one has a rep who cannot make number and one who cannot miss it, and both know it by February.
It depends on why the map is changing. A realignment for balance should keep most revenue with its current owner, eighty percent or more. A restructure that changes the coverage model will move more, deliberately, and the check then says how much and where, so the handover plan can be sized.
Often. Perfect potential balance may require moves that break continuity. The report shows both, and the leader chooses the trade-off with the numbers in front of them instead of discovering it from the reps.