Not software. Not a headcount model. Not a map with coloured regions that makes everyone feel better about a bad decision.
A structured audit framework. 38 questions that expose unfair territory design, inherited assumptions, and the coverage problems hiding behind every quota that nobody can hit.
In 2021, a Sales Operations Director inherited a territory model that hadn't been redesigned in four years.
Three reps were routinely making 160% of quota.
Two hadn't hit plan in three years.
Management called it a performance problem.
She ran the numbers.
The three reps who were crushing it had territories with four times the addressable opportunity of the two who were failing.
She built the analysis in a weekend. Took it to the CRO on a Monday. He asked why nobody had said this before. She said the territory model had never been questioned.
She wrote down every question that should have been asked before it was built.
Then she sent them to the Professor.
He never signed another territory plan without asking them.
He will never assign a number to a rep without first proving the territory can carry it.
He will never call performance a people problem until he's eliminated the territory problem.
If you want the audit, the framework is the only way.
Everything else is gone.
The territory model you have now was built on decisions someone else made, in a market that no longer exists, for a headcount that has since changed. It has never been questioned.
The problem was never the territories. It was the questions nobody was asking about them.
A 38-question territory audit framework across four sections. Each question carries its mechanism, what the answer reveals, and the red flags that mean the territory problem is being mistaken for a performance problem.
Dispatched to practitioners. These are their reports.
The Territory Fairness Audit took four hours to run across our twelve territories. We found that the top two territories had 3.4x the documented opportunity of the bottom two. We'd been running PIPs on those reps for six months. We killed the PIPs. We redesigned the territories. Both reps hit plan in the next quarter.
Section 4 — the Inherited Decision Review — should be mandatory for every new RevOps hire. I took over a territory model with 11 embedded assumptions I'd never examined. Two of them were wrong in ways that were costing us pipeline. Found them in the first session.
Territory design is the most consequential decision in sales operations and the least examined one. We redesign territories every three years if we're disciplined about it. And every time we do, we find decisions from the previous cycle that nobody can explain. This framework doesn't redesign your territories. It forces you to examine whether they deserve to be redesigned — and gives you the evidence to do it. I used it in Q4 to make the case to our CRO for a full territorial review. The data was unambiguous. We're mid-redesign now. I expect it to change performance outcomes for six reps who've been wrongly categorised as underperformers.
Names abbreviated. Roles and company details reported by purchasers at point of download.
Instant download. PDF + Worksheets. No account required. No upsell.
Secure checkout via Gumroad. Instant delivery. Works anywhere a PDF works.
Every territory looks reasonable until someone asks what the opportunity actually is.— Professor Pipeline
He will never assign a number to a rep without first proving the territory can carry it.
He will never call performance a people problem until he's eliminated the territory problem.
The framework is the only way to get his thinking.
Everything else is gone.