Month: February 2020

by Alan Marrott Alan Marrott No Comments

Five Justifications for Requesting a Proof of Concept

Incentive Compensation Management involves strategies and variables unique to every business.  Proofs of Concept ensure that these are effectively addressed when automating that process.


Unique business conditions, strategies and operations

    1. Packaged software solutions can be very useful, until they aren’t. When it comes to process automation, exceptions do become the rule. If your unique needs are not supported, how useful can the product possibly be?
    2. Expose empty sales pitches. Sales professionals typically follow a standard pitch. Don’t allow those pitches to distract you from your strategic objectives. After the pitches are made, confirm how your objectives will be met.
    3. WYSIWYG: What you see is what you get. If a vendor can’t show you what you need to see, don’t expect that it will magically provide what you want. If a vendor can’t demonstrate how its solution can meet your specific requirements it never will, or it will cost you a lot to make it possible.

Mitigate risk

    1. Successful change management requires effective Risk management. System users who experience failed or disappointing results soon realize that lost money may not represent the greatest risk. Lost time, damaged morale, and loss of trust usually prove far more consequential than wasted money.
    2. Leveraging a proof of concept should expose risks that can lead to unexpected consequences. If specific functionality can’t be demonstrated during the evaluation process, negotiate a specific cost for creating it. Decision makers should be able to enter into an agreement that prevents surprises. It’s your money. Protect it.
    3. Too often, packaged solution purchasers consider the size of a vendor when selecting a solution. Why? One reason used to justify this self-defeating approach is, if things don’t work out, you can sue a vendor with deep pockets. Rather than plan for the worst, effective decision makers should focus on purchasing the best. Entering into legal entanglements for months or years following a failed implementation just introduces new risks. A better strategy is to ensure that your selected system works before you buy it.

Effective collaboration

    1. Successful system implementations begin with purposeful collaboration. Often times, relationships between a vendor and potential customer change once an agreement is signed. Working through a preliminary implementation, by creating a proof of concept that demonstrates how a system supports your key functionality, can provide insights into what to expect in a long-term relationship.
    2. A proof of concept can benefit all parties. The vendor quickly discovers how actively a prospect will support the implementation process. The prospect gains insight into the capabilities of the packaged solution, and how willing and cost effectively the vendor addresses functionality gaps.

Successful Implementation

    1. When properly constructed, a proof of concept should guarantee a successful implementation. It should end with one clear conclusion. It works!
    2. A failed or delayed implementation creates a bad first impression that may not be easily overcome. Taking time to create a meaningful proof of concept minimizes destructive surprises following a product rollout. A system’s credibility can be lost during the initial days of your users’ experience.
    3. A properly designed proof of concept creates a useful roadmap for a successful implementation. Standard functionality is confirmed, missing functionality is identified, and the effort to fill the gap can be quantified.

Partnership founded on confidence and trust

    1. Glocent’s ( objective and track record reflect a commitment to complete and enduring client satisfaction. We won’t implement Glocent unless we are confident that it fully supports your incentive management operations both in the present and the future.
    2. One of our international clients has used Glocent for over eleven years. Its satisfaction with the results led to a reference that generated another client, which has remained a happy customer for nine years, and just recently, another customer that began using Glocent last year.   Without genuine trust and confidence, such long-term relationships do not occur.
    3. Another Glocent client succumbed to pressure to adopt a sales performance management solution from one of the deep-pocket vendors after it skillfully tossed out a myriad of bells and whistles during the sales cycle. Eighteen months later, the former client called and asked for help. Glocent was back in full operation within weeks. The legal battle over the failed implementation took years to resolve.
No situation justifies acting blindly or making an uninformed decision. Time and effort spent before a decision is made are typically far less costly than the consequences that follow a bad one….
by Alan Marrott Alan Marrott No Comments

Beware of Shiny Objects

The following scenario has become all too familiar.  Businesses come to realize the inefficiencies, inaccuracies and audit failures tied to managing incentive compensation with spreadsheets.  In an effort to improve and bring meaningful transparency to the process, organizations decide to purchase an automated Sales Performance Management (SPM) solution to address these deficiencies.  Months of effort, cost overruns and increasing frustration eventually end with a solution being implemented.  Months, weeks, or even days later, however, the users determine that the solution doesn’t support their incentive models and sales operations.

Read more