B2B opportunity qualification: beyond BANT and MEDDIC to IMPACCT

This article was first published on LinkedIn, stimulated by an article by Mark Gibson.

The qualification of complex B2B sales opportunities has come a long way since IBM came up with BANT (Budget, Authority, Need and Timeframe) in the 1960s - the age of the mainframes. But a great deal has changed in B2B buying since then.

So why are a significant number of B2B sales organizations still using BANT as their primary sales opportunity qualification methodology? I acknowledge that at some point in its evolution, any worthwhile sales opportunity will need to be funded by an adequate budget, be promoted within the prospect organization by someone with authority, to address a significant business need, and require a decision within a suitably short timeframe.

But those considerations are incomplete - and they are rarely all present in the early stages of a buying decision journey, particularly for a discretionary purchase that could (and often does) result in the prospect deciding to “do nothing” - at least for the moment.

So why is BANT such an inadequate approach to initial opportunity qualification - and an inadequate way of determining whether or when a “BANT qualified” opportunity will close?

Let’s start by looking at the presence or absence of a formal budget...

Budget can be misleading

Research by Gartner has shown that around half of the ultimately successful B2B buying decision journeys start without a formal budget having been approved. If the underlying economics of solving the problem are strong enough, and if the project is being authoritatively promoted by a sufficiently powerful executive sponsor, the money will be found.

On the other hand, if an already-budgeted project lacks a powerful enough executive sponsor, and if the business case proves to be insufficiently compelling, there is a very high chance that the funding will be reallocated to another more promising project.

So, the premature disqualification of an early-stage opportunity because of lack of budget - particularly one that is likely (as many are) to be regarded as a discretionary purchase - has a 50/50 chance of being a bad decision. And it’s also true that over-confidence in an opportunity because the budget apparently already exists often proves to be a bad decision.

Beyond BANT to MEDDIC

These issues with BANT (and other qualification methodologies) led to the emergence of MEDDIC in the 1990s - still a long time ago - and its derivatives MEDDICC and MEDDPICC. MEDDIC stands for:

• Metrics (the prospect’s key performance indicators)
• Economic Buyer (the person who has the final say in the purchasing decision)
• Decision Criteria (the basis on which the prospect will decide between their options)
• Decision Process (how the prospect will make their decision, who will be involved, and the timeframe)
• Identify Pain (the prospect’s challenges, issues, and pain points)
• Champion (people who will actively promote your solution internally)

These basic MEDDIC criteria represented a significant advance over BANT and led to a number of derivatives. MEDDPIC added a P for “paper process” for scenarios where navigating the approval process is particularly complex. MEDDPICC added a second C for the competitive environment. These two extensions made the approach even more appropriate for complex B2B sales.

It’s perhaps no surprise that MEDDIC and its derivatives have overtaken BANT as the preferred opportunity methodology for complex B2B sales, particularly for technology-related solutions. But the approach still has some issues.

The first and most obvious one is that although the acronyms are easy to remember, they don’t really reflect the sequence in which the factors need to be assessed. The position of "I" for identify pain late in the sequence is a particular challenge: If no obvious business issue or pain has been identified and acknowledged, then all the other qualification factors are somewhat irrelevant.

The second challenge is that there is no obvious place to assess timing or urgency. It is true that urgency is in part a function of pain, and the metrics associated with the cost of inaction, but the lack of an explicit focus on timing has always seemed to represent a weak spot.

Finally, the original definitions behind the acronym need to be redefined to reflect the modern buying environment, and it’s probably accurate to say that a number of MEDDIC implementations have already done this.

Evolving from MEDDIC to IMPACCT

These factors have led a number of organisations to evolve beyond MEDDIC and its derivatives. Our own approach - IMPACCT - attempts to preserve MEDDIC’s strengths whilst addressing some of its limitations, not least of which by proposing a more logical sequence:

I: Issues and Implications - what are the prospect’s key business issues, what are the implications, who is affected by them, and are the consequences sufficient to force them to take action?

M: Money and Economic Metrics - has an appropriate budget been allocated and if not, is there an obvious source of funding - and what is the economic impact of the key business metrics?

P: Decision Process and Criteria - what are the prospect’s decision and approval processes, what are their decision criteria - and are all of these clear and favourable to us?

A: Authority and Influence - who are the key stakeholders and gatekeepers and what influence do they have over the decision - and who has the ultimate authority to approve the project?

C: Champions - have we identified and engaged with powerful and effective internal champions who are willing and able to promote both the project and our approach to the rest of the stakeholder group?

C: Competition - what alternative options are they considering, how do we stand against them, and what is the relative priority of this project vs. their other investment opportunities?

T: Timing and Urgency - how urgent is the project, when are they planning to make a decision, what is driving this, and how confident are we in this date?

You can download our guide to IMPACCT here. As I hope you can see, IMPACCT follows a more logical sequence than MEDDIC and also:

• Prioritizes the customer’s issues and their implications, without which there will be no motivation to change
• Looks not only at metrics but also at money, and how the project will be funded
• Extends the focus on the economic buyer to include the concept of ultimate authority
• Recognizes that we may need to identify and engage with multiple champions if we are to win their business
• Acknowledges that our most significant competition may come from other projects (or “do nothing”)
• Embeds timing, urgency, and close date confidence directly into the qualification process

As you might expect, I prefer IMPACCT, and I have seen it generate even more accurate qualification than other approaches. But the most important thing is that you choose one qualification methodology that is appropriate to your type of business and that you then implement it consistently.

Qualification is a continuous process, not an event

My final observation on the subject is that in any complex and lengthy sales environment, qualification must be managed as a continuous process and not as a one-off event or as a stage in the sales process. It’s clear that qualification is an essential element in any sales process, but I hope that you will also recognise that making it a stage in the sales process that is over once it has been completed is unhelpful.

Salespeople (and sales managers) who think that qualification is complete after a few boxes have been ticked tend to be less aware of the likely-to-be-inevitable changes that emerge during the prospects rarely-linear buying decision journey - and that one of the primary reasons why sales forecasting accuracy is such a challenges for so many sales organisations.

At least, that’s what I think. What about you?