Use this guide to define the problem, compare delivery approaches and ask providers to demonstrate the work you will receive. By the end, you should have a clearer scope, evidence requirements for your shortlist and a practical way to judge implementation.
Published by Closing Foundry. Apply the same buying tests to us and to every provider you consider.
01 Start with the work you want to change
A leader should be able to examine an opportunity, distinguish supported facts from assumptions and help the seller choose a useful next move. The seller should understand why that move matters and how to carry it out. Training, management practice and tools should support that work.
A course can establish a common understanding. Applying it consistently also requires decisions about your buyers, evidence standards, sales motion and coaching. Decide which of those foundations already exist before buying more.
The standard behind the questions
- Metrics
- Economic Buyer
- Decision Criteria
- Decision Process
- Paper Process
- Identify and Implicate Pain
- Champion
- Competition
MEDDPICC covers Metrics, Economic Buyer, Decision Criteria, Decision Process, Paper Process, Identify and Implicate Pain, Champion and Competition. The elements work together to inform deal judgement and strategy. They are not a compulsory sequence of customer meetings.
The amount and quality of evidence needed should fit the buyer’s stage and the risk of the decision. An early opportunity will contain uncertainty. Good application makes that uncertainty usable rather than disguising it.
Part 1 of 3
Define the purchase
Identify the business issue and the level of work required.
02 Start with the commercial problem
Choose one consequential issue and identify the work that may influence it. The symptoms below are starting points for investigation; none proves that the seller needs training.
| What you are seeing | What to examine before choosing a fix |
|---|---|
| Deals repeatedly slip | Buyer decision steps, approval dependencies, confirmed ownership and the evidence behind the close date. |
| Opportunities stall after discovery or demo | Whether the buyer agrees a meaningful problem and next decision; whether the next interaction helps them make it. |
| Business cases do not withstand challenge | The source of the baseline, value assumptions, buyer validation and who owns the outcome. |
| Leaders repeatedly rescue opportunities | What the seller can do independently, what managers coach and whether access, process or authority limits the work. |
| Deal reviews produce different answers | The evidence standard, how people interpret it, and whether that interpretation changes the action. |
- Choose one consequential issue
- Identify the work that may influence it
- Write a short purchase hypothesis‘We want to improve [commercial measure]. We suspect [specific practice] contributes. We will examine [comparable work] before deciding what to change.’
Establish a useful starting point
The free MEDDPICC Leadership Review asks 21 questions about sellers, managers and leadership. It turns your answers into a brief with up to two suggested starting points, checks and a 30-day plan. Use the brief to structure the first management discussion.
Get your MEDDPICC leadership brief →
No deal details required. The brief reflects your reported view. It is not an independent assessment, a competence score or a finding that a particular cause has been proved.
Check whether a programme is the right purchase
If the underlying issue is product fit, weak demand, pricing, unavailable capability or an unworkable commercial model, a MEDDPICC programme may expose the issue without resolving it. Include the responsible product, marketing or commercial leaders in the investigation.
If nobody has time to own coaching or approve the working standard, establish that ownership before commissioning a broad rollout.
03 Choose the scope and delivery model
Ask providers to separate what people learn from the work needed to apply, maintain and support it. Several routes can be sensible; their responsibilities and costs differ.
| Route | When it can fit | What must be in place |
|---|---|---|
| Learning or certification | People need a foundation or a shared language, and the company can handle application internally. | A competent internal owner, practice opportunities, manager reinforcement and an assessment that goes beyond attendance. |
| Tailored MEDDPICC programme | The team needs common evidence standards, relevant practice and managers equipped to coach. | Buyer and deal examples, tailored rubrics, practical workshops, follow-up and reusable material. |
| Broader sales enablement | Stages, playbooks, coaching or CRM expectations need redesign alongside MEDDPICC. | Explicit process scope, RevOps ownership, implementation resources and a measured adoption plan. |
| Next Best Action Layer | The agreed method needs to support repeatable, context-specific AI guidance. | Approved sources, representative deal evidence, an agreed destination, evaluation and an owner for updates. |
| Internal delivery or train the trainer | Your own team has the expertise, capacity and authority to build and maintain the approach. | Calibrated assessors, protected manager time, source quality and a plan for new starters and updates. |
Choose the technology arrangement deliberately
An integrated membership and platform can simplify access to learning and tools. A specialist implementation in your existing environment can preserve the tools your team already uses and give you more control over the working method. The latter can require more coordination, configuration and maintenance.
Neither arrangement is inherently better. Ask which responsibilities remain with you, what is exportable, what happens if the engagement ends and whether platform or API fees are additional.
Ask for a scope you can compare
Request separate lines for design, training, leader preparation, follow-up, reusable materials, structured AI content, integration and maintenance. A programme that teaches people to identify next actions does not automatically include an automated recommendation system.
- Design
- Training
- Leader preparation
- Follow-up
- Reusable materials
- Structured AI content
- Integration
- Maintenance
Buy the smallest scope that can address the problem and demonstrate useful application. Add other motions or teams after the standard and delivery approach have been tested.
04 Specify what customisation must change
Customisation should change the decisions a seller and manager can make. Ask the provider to show the connection between your buying situations, the evidence that matters and the work expected at each stage.
| Dimension | What a useful adaptation specifies |
|---|---|
| Buyers and problems | Relevant roles, actual workflows, business problems, desired outcomes and approved product claims. |
| Metrics and value | Useful baselines, units and time periods; material assumptions; who can validate the value and who owns the outcome. |
| Authority and advocacy | What supports an Economic Buyer’s authority, how access is obtained, and what demonstrates a potential Champion’s influence, interest and advocacy. |
| Criteria and competition | How the buyer evaluates options, including an internal solution or no change; how differentiation can be substantiated. |
| Decision and paper processes | The buyer’s evaluation and decision path, then the approval, procurement, legal and signature work. Dependencies may run in parallel. |
| Stage and motion | What is relevant now, evidence needed for the next decision, proportionate depth, approved exceptions and reasons to pause or disqualify. |
| Execution and coaching | What to know, show, do, say and avoid; what managers inspect; the asset or practice that helps someone act. |
| Ownership and change | Who approves the standard, maintains product truth and assets, reviews exceptions and updates onboarding material. |
Ask to see the change in an example
Give the provider one representative buying situation. Ask them to explain what their standard requires, why, and what would differ in a simpler deal or another motion. A logo swap and generic role-play do not answer this test.
Preserve the meaning of MEDDPICC
Adapt the application while keeping the concepts coherent.
- A senior job title does not establish buying authority.
- A helpful contact is not automatically a Champion.
- An ROI estimate is not buyer-confirmed value.
- A target date is not a validated decision process.
Do not demand every field be complete at the first meeting. Define which unknowns are acceptable, which prevent a responsible next step and how the team will resolve them.
Part 2 of 3
Evaluate the substance
What to examine in rubrics, worked examples, AI guidance and supplier demonstrations.
05 Assess the opportunity and the person separately
Deal evidence, individual competence and commercial results answer different questions. Ask a provider how it assesses each and how the findings inform coaching.
| Assessment | Question it answers | Evidence to request |
|---|---|---|
| Deal evidence | What is supported in this opportunity, what remains uncertain and what does it mean for the next decision? | A sourced, dated example that preserves missing, conflicting and unverified information. |
| Seller and manager competence | Can the person apply the method, interpret evidence and choose or coach a justified action? | Observable examples across suitable work, with clear assessment anchors and calibrated reviewers. |
| Commercial performance | Are relevant deal and revenue outcomes changing over an appropriate period? | Consistent definitions, cohort and baseline; counts alongside rates; an explanation of other changes. |
A missing answer needs interpretation
An empty decision-process field could reflect incomplete discovery, insufficient documentation, a buyer who cannot yet answer, or a stage where the detail is not yet relevant. Check before assigning a cause or a coaching action.
Likewise, a sound business case produced with extensive manager help does not demonstrate independent seller competence. A later independent example can demonstrate progress without changing what happened earlier.
Make manager participation concrete
Ask managers to examine the reasoning, practise the next conversation where necessary and agree what evidence they will revisit. Leadership must provide access, priorities and a working standard that managers can actually use. Missing visibility into management practice is not proof of a management deficiency.
A useful assessment process allows uncertainty, distinguishes prompting from independent work and avoids treating one example as evidence of a team-wide trend.
View the MEDDPICC competence model →
Closing Foundry’s public model shows the competence areas and expectations. The free Leadership Review is a separate starting exercise; it does not administer the full competence assessment.
06 Demand a worked example
Illustrative buying situation
These are fictional facts for comparison, not a client result.
- StatedOperations lead says manual handoffs delay customer onboarding.
- StatedOperations lead asks for a demo.
- Not yet reviewedThe technical owner has not reviewed the workflow.
- UnconfirmedThe cost of delay.
- UnconfirmedThe buying authority.
A useful recommendation explains the next decision
Propose a discovery-validation session with the operations lead and technical owner before finalising the demo.
- Purpose
- To agree one workflow, establish a baseline and determine what the demonstration needs to prove.
- Owner
- The account executive owns arranging it.
- Timing
- A proposal until the buyer agrees.
| Guidance | Specific execution |
|---|---|
| Know | Where handoffs occur, who owns them, their frequency and delay, and which system limitations matter. |
| Show | A relevant workflow example using only approved capabilities. Label anything that still needs a feasibility check. |
| Do | Validate the current workflow and agree the criteria for a useful demo. Clarify who evaluates and who authorises a purchase. |
| Say | ‘Could we use one recent onboarding case to agree where the delay occurs and what a useful demonstration would need to prove?’ |
| Avoid | Invented ROI, assumed authority, an automatic Champion label or a promise that an untested integration already works. |
| Check afterwards | Buyer-confirmed workflow and evaluation criteria; remaining uncertainty; whether the next meeting is genuinely agreed. |
Change one fact and test the response
- Now tell the provider
- The technical owner has accepted the meeting.
- A useful recommendation
- Moves to preparation and the missing baseline.
- It should not
- Keep asking for the same introduction, or infer that budget or technical fit is now confirmed.
- Then introduce a conflicting fact
- The product may not support a mandatory requirement.
- A useful recommendation
- Investigates that limitation and allows a pause or disqualification.
- It should not
- Manufacture a way to advance the opportunity.
This exercise tests evidence interpretation, priority and execution support.
A polished response is useful only if its reasoning survives the changed facts.
07 Understand the Next Best Action Layer
A call transcript supplies evidence about a conversation. A sales method supplies a standard for interpreting it. Useful guidance combines that evidence with the buyer’s situation, the next decision and practical help for the seller.
Closing Foundry’s Next Best Action Layer structures the agreed sales approach for use by an AI assistant or another agreed workflow. The customer-specific method is maintained separately from the changing evidence about each opportunity.
| What is structured | What it contributes |
|---|---|
| Business and buyer context | Your proposition, buyer roles, problems, desired outcomes and approved proof. |
| Deal inspection methods | MEDDPICC and other agreed lenses such as why change, why now, why us, and the current-to-future-state gap. |
| Stage guidance | Relevant evidence, priorities, dependencies, exceptions and what to know, show, do, say and avoid. |
| Skills and behaviours | How to carry out the next action and how a manager can coach the application. |
| Approved assets | The appropriate call plan, demo structure, proof, business-case template or other working material. |
What the seller should receive
A small set of useful recommendations should state the action, why it matters now, the evidence behind it, a proposed owner and timing, practical execution guidance and the evidence that would show it is complete. People review the recommendation before using it.
Missing information, a negative finding and a contradiction must remain distinguishable. Source references and relevant dates should be retained. When evidence changes, the recommendation needs to be reconsidered.
What to agree before buying
Confirm one initial sales motion, the source material, the target environment and how outputs will be tested with sales leaders. A configured assistant may be sufficient initially. Automated ingestion, custom CRM interfaces and writeback need their own agreed scope.
The current scoped offer is typically 2–4 weeks once inputs, access and reviewers are ready. This is not a promise to integrate every platform in that window. Platform subscriptions and API usage are separate.
08 Test the provider before scaling
Use the same representative, appropriately anonymised case with every shortlisted provider. If you need substantial custom work to evaluate the approach, agree a bounded paid pilot and its acceptance criteria.
Ask the provider to demonstrate
- How it distinguishes source evidence from seller interpretation and missing information.
- Which uncertainty matters to the next buyer decision and why it is prioritised.
- What the seller should do, including a useful question or asset.
- How a manager would coach the seller rather than simply provide the answer.
- How the recommendation changes when the buyer situation changes.
- What would justify pausing or disqualifying the deal.
If AI guidance is included
Test sparse evidence, conflicting statements, an unproven product requirement, a new stakeholder and a changed next meeting. Hold back some examples from tuning. Have your commercial reviewers assess outputs independently, then resolve disagreements against the agreed standard.
Ask separately whether facts were extracted correctly, the evidence was assessed reasonably and the next action was useful. One can succeed while another fails. Retain the test inputs, method version, outputs and reviewer decisions.
Agree release conditions in advance
Unsupported commitments, invented product capabilities and leakage between customers should block release. Agree acceptable performance on evidence fidelity, stage relevance, specificity, prioritisation and practical usefulness. Record unresolved limitations and the process for correction.
A small pilot establishes whether an implementation is ready for a bounded use case. It does not prove general AI accuracy or that commercial outcomes will improve.
Ask for proof you can inspect
Request a sanitised worked example, a relevant customer reference where permitted, the actual delivery team and an explanation of what that team personally delivered. Treat testimonials as accounts of experience; ask separately for measured results and their basis.
For an integrated platform, test the contracted product configuration. For a custom layer, test the destination your team will actually use. A staged demonstration alone does not establish a production integration.
09 Compare suppliers on evidence
Before demonstrations, mark each criterion Essential, Useful or Not required. Record Observed, Partly shown or Not shown, plus the artefact or reference supporting your judgement. Do not turn unverified claims into a numerical total.
| Criterion | Evidence to request | Record |
|---|---|---|
| Fit to your buying motion | A worked example that changes with buyer context, stage and deal complexity. | Priority / status / evidence |
| Specificity of customisation | Buyer value work, evidence standards, practical stage guidance and an example of an exception. | Priority / status / evidence |
| Deal and competence assessment | Separate assessment anchors and a reviewer-calibration exercise. | Priority / status / evidence |
| Manager preparation | A sample coaching conversation, manager toolkit and the expected recurring review. | Priority / status / evidence |
| Delivery and reinforcement | Named delivery people, capacity, practice design, follow-up schedule and customer responsibilities. | Priority / status / evidence |
| Technology fit if required | A demonstrated route in the agreed environment, dependencies, limitations and human approval. | Priority / status / evidence |
| Measurement | Baseline, sample, metric definitions and a plan to distinguish application from commercial outcomes. | Priority / status / evidence |
| Ownership and total cost | Materials rights, export formats, licences, integration effort, maintenance and exit arrangements. | Priority / status / evidence |
Download the printable worksheet (PDF, 208 KB) →
Keep a short decision record
For each supplier, record the problem it is expected to address, evidence you have inspected, material assumptions, unresolved gaps, first delivery milestone and total expected cost. Ask someone outside the selection process to challenge it.
An essential requirement remains unresolved until it is demonstrated or explicitly accepted as a risk. Strength in presentation, brand or content volume should not silently compensate for a missing implementation dependency.
Use the worksheet in a buying meeting
Discuss disagreements rather than averaging them away. Agree who can validate technical feasibility, who approves spend and who will own the method after rollout. Keep programme scope, approval steps and contractual requirements visible so the purchase itself has a credible decision path.
Apply the same criteria to a fully internal programme. Internal effort and opportunity cost still count.
Part 3 of 3
Agree delivery
Rollout, ownership, measurement and the next step.
10 Agree delivery ownership and measurement
A practical sequence
| Phase | Work to agree | Acceptance evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Design | Select the motion and commercial issue. Examine sources and real work. Define the standard, assessors and measures. | Approved examples, rubrics, owners and a feasible measurement plan. |
| Enable | Prepare managers. Train and practise on relevant opportunities. Test interpretation and justified action. | Work that meets the agreed standard, with coaching or reassessment where needed. |
| Run | Use the standard in existing 1:1s and deal reviews. Revisit actions, update material and support new starters. | Comparable later work, recorded learning and the agreed review of commercial measures. |
Measure the mechanism before attributing the result
| Measure | How to make it useful |
|---|---|
| Mechanism | |
| Application | Count relevant reviewed examples meeting a defined practice standard. Record the sample and whether work needed prompting. |
| Deal progression | Check whether the action produced the intended buyer evidence or decision. A completed seller task alone is insufficient. |
| Result | |
| Win rate and cycle time | Use comparable opportunity cohorts and consistent definitions. Report sample sizes and allow for the sales cycle. |
| Forecast judgement | Compare forecasts made at a fixed horizon with actuals. Retain close-date movement, deal mix and the reasons for changes. |
Agree one primary business outcome and a few leading measures. Revenue changes may also reflect pipeline mix, pricing, product changes or market conditions. Do not attribute a simple before-and-after movement entirely to training or AI.
Make the total cost and ownership explicit
Include preparation, training, manager time, reinforcement, licences, content upkeep, integration, API usage and support. State what is included, what needs customer resources and what triggers a scope change.
Name the sponsor, method owner, coaching owner and technical owner where relevant. Agree how conflicting guidance is resolved, how changes are approved, what material the team can reuse and how work continues when the provider leaves.
11 How Closing Foundry approaches the work
We build MEDDPICC application around your buying situations, then prepare the people who must use and coach it. The working standard connects buyer evidence, deal judgement, seller competence and practical next actions.
- Design
- We examine how and why your customers buy, build on useful RevOps and enablement work, develop the agreed buyer value maps and tailor the course, deal-evidence rubric, competence rubric and manager toolkit. Measures and responsibilities are agreed before training.
- Enable
- Leaders prepare before sellers. Leadership work covers evidence inspection, deal strategy, coaching and the next action. Sellers practise with live or past opportunities. The course materials support continued coaching and onboarding.
- Run
- The core programme includes three months of monthly individual check-ins with sales leaders after seller training. Managers continue coaching through their regular 1:1s and deal reviews. The competence rubric supports individual growth priorities, reviewed alongside the agreed commercial measures.Preparation and training precede that application period. The whole engagement is not automatically a 90-day delivery, and leader check-ins are not unlimited direct coaching for every seller.
Choose extensions deliberately
Broader stage, playbook and workflow work can sit within Strategic Sales Enablement. The Next Best Action Layer is a separately scoped extension for structuring the method and practical guidance for AI use. Core MEDDPICC training does not automatically include software configuration or integration.
The layer can be configured for an agreed environment once source readiness, available data, permissions and implementation effort are understood. The aim is a useful, maintainable approach in the tools your team can support.
What to ask us to demonstrate
Ask us to show a relevant buyer situation, the two rubrics, a practical coaching example and how the same standard informs a next action. For the AI extension, ask for a source-linked example and a changed-evidence test. Agree the exact delivery team, cohort scope, usage rights and follow-up before committing.
Explore the MEDDPICC programme →
We expect to be evaluated against the same standards set out in this guide.
12 Leave with a clear buying brief
Use the following structure for an internal discussion or a conversation with a provider. Keep the first version to one page.
| Decision | Complete this in your own words |
|---|---|
| Business issue | The commercial result we need to improve is … |
| Practice to investigate | The relevant work we need to understand or improve is … |
| Evidence available | We can examine these calls, deal records, artefacts and observations … |
| Initial scope | The first team, motion and buying situation will be … |
| Working standard | The definitions, guidance and assessment we need are … |
| Technology if needed | The intended environment and dependencies are … |
| People and time | The sponsor, manager owner, method owner and available capacity are … |
| Proof and decision | We will proceed when the following evidence, scope and costs are agreed … |
Download the printable buying brief (PDF, 138 KB) →
Choose your next step
You should leave the buying process knowing what will be built, who will use it, how it will be maintained and what evidence will show whether it is helping.
If you need a starting point for the team discussion, complete the free review.
If you are selecting a programme, bring the issue, one representative buying situation and what you already have. We can discuss the scope and evidence needed.
If the priority is making existing sales guidance useful to AI, examine the detailed example and bring your method, a representative deal and the intended tools.
About this guide
Written by Charles Talbot · Published by Closing Foundry · Updated
Sources: this is Closing Foundry’s own buying guide. It quotes no outside research or statistics. Our offer details match our current pages: MEDDPICC training, the Next Best Action Layer, the MEDDPICC Leadership Review and Strategic Sales Enablement.
Download the guide (PDF, 18 pages, 1.8 MB)
More on MEDDPICC: the MEDDPICC hub and the competence model.