Nikhat I.

That’s a fair point Tony W.. No model or plan really works if it ignores the human side of selling. Buyers still respond to how well sellers understand their problem, ask the right questions, and guide the conversation. When forecasts or targets don’t account for where sellers actually are in terms of skill and support, the gap shows up quickly. Data can point to issues, but improvement still has to happen person-to-person.

This is such a great callout. When targets are shaped by compromise and optics, the risk quietly shifts to execution and that’s where things start to break. I really like how you framed it as numbers turning into positions to defend instead of signals to learn from. Once that happens, it gets a lot harder to have honest conversations about what’s actually changing and what to do next.

This hits hard. When upstream assumptions go unchallenged, the model looks confident while reality on the ground tells a different story and execution ends up holding the bag.

Midori V., this is such a good way to frame it. Shifting the question from “who’s right?” to “what changed?” takes the ego out of it and speeds up learning. I love the emphasis on investigating the delta quickly, that’s usually where the most useful signal shows up.

Predictive planning is helpful for setting direction, but the real signal shows up in the day-to-day conversations reps are having with customers. Starting with what the field is seeing before recalibrating the plan feels like the right order, otherwise the plan stays “right” on paper while reality keeps moving. Appreciate you calling that out.

This is such a good distinction. I’ve found forecasts only become useful when they help teams understand which levers they can pull and the expected impact, rather than just predict an outcome. Forecasting as a decision tool vs. a report is the real shift.