gtm-enterprise-account-planning by github/awesome-copilot
npx skills add https://github.com/github/awesome-copilot --skill gtm-enterprise-account-planning针对企业级交易的战略客户规划与执行。将复杂的销售周期转化为系统性胜利——或者至少在你浪费数月时间之前,知道交易何时会失败。
触发场景:
适用背景:
我观察到的模式:
共同行动计划(MAP)是衡量交易健康状况的最佳单一指标。不是销售管道阶段,不是口头承诺,也不是"他们喜欢这个产品"。
MAP 告诉你一切:
健康的交易:
垂死的交易:
为什么会这样:
广告位招租
在这里展示您的产品或服务
触达数万 AI 开发者,精准高效
当交易是真实的,客户希望它发生。他们正在做工作。他们正在让利益相关者参与进来。他们正在推进自己的流程。
当交易正在死亡,你正在做所有的工作。他们"太忙了"。他们"下周会回复你"。经济决策者"正在出差"。
三周规则:
如果你的 MAP 超过3周未更新,交易就死了——只是你还不知道。我从未见过一份过时的 MAP 能促成交易成交。11年来一次都没有。
该怎么做:
沉默的第一周: 发送 MAP 更新:"以下是我们已完成的工作。关于[具体的客户行动],您的进展如何?"
沉默的第二周: 向你的支持者(champion)升级:"尚未收到关于 MAP 的回复。我们还能按[日期]推进吗?如果优先级发生了变化,请告诉我。"
沉默的第三周: 取消资格或重置:"看起来时机可能不太合适。我们是应该暂停并在[时间范围]后重新联系,还是有什么阻碍需要我帮忙解决?"
常见错误:
因为"他们说想要"而将交易保留在管道中。口头兴趣 ≠ 行动。如果他们不采取行动,他们就不会购买。
模式:
你进入交易第8周。概念验证(POC)进行得很顺利。支持者喜欢你。技术验证已完成。你发送了提案。
然后:杳无音信。
发生了什么? 你从未见过经济决策者。
经济决策者(EB)是指:
不是指:
为什么没有接触 EB 的交易会死亡:
你根据支持者的假设构建了商业案例。但 EB 有不同的优先级:
当你通过支持者将提案发送给 EB 时,EB 看到的是:
结果: 交易停滞或死亡。
框架:EB 验证清单
在发送提案之前,验证:
如果你对任何一项回答"否",暂时不要发送提案。
如何获得接触 EB 的机会:
询问你的支持者: "在我们最终确定价格之前,我希望与 [EB 姓名] 进行15分钟的交流,以确保我们在结果和时间线上保持一致。你能介绍我们认识吗?"
如果支持者阻止: "我可以处理,你不需要和他们谈" → 这是一个危险信号。要么支持者没有接触渠道(不是真正的支持者),要么他们害怕 EB 会否决交易(这意味着交易很脆弱)。
反驳: "我完全理解。同时,我希望确保 [EB] 在看到价格之前了解全部价值。根据我的经验,如果经济决策者没有及早参与,交易会在采购阶段被延误。我们能安排一个快速的对齐会议吗?"
常见错误:
将接触 EB 视为"锦上添花"。对于任何超过5万美元的交易,这是强制性的。没有接触 EB = 没有交易。
模式:
企业软件采购由委员会决定。但委员会不购买。是人购买。
而人们出于个人原因购买:
框架:个人利益识别
为每个利益相关者,映射:
职业利益:
职业风险:
个人动机:
示例:工程副总裁
职业利益:
职业风险:
个人动机:
这如何改变你的推介:
通用推介: "我们的平台将事件响应时间缩短40%。"
个人利益推介: "您提到待命负担正在耗尽您的团队精力。我们看到团队在第一个月就将待命呼叫减少了40%,这有助于提高员工保留率。而且,由于您专注于向董事会汇报的正常运行时间指标,改进的响应时间会立即体现在您的季度业务回顾仪表板上。"
区别:
通用 = 商业案例 个人 = 职业案例
两者都重要。但个人利益促成交易。
常见错误:
只针对业务问题销售。"这能省钱。这能提高效率。"这是必要的,但还不够。人们需要看到对他们个人有什么好处。
一个完整的客户计划包含四个相互关联的部分。每个部分都为其他部分提供信息。
组成部分 1:客户摘要
组成部分 2:组织架构图
组成部分 3:机会计划(MEDDICC)
附加:包含缓解计划、所需帮助、负责方的问题/风险表
组成部分 4:共同行动计划(MAP)
决策标准:
对于潜在交易规模排名前10-20%的客户,值得投入精力制定完整的客户计划。对于其余客户,使用简化版本(摘要 + MEDDICC + 后续步骤)。
常见错误:
在接触战略客户之前,通过 LinkedIn 量化他们在你所在领域的投入。
如何执行:
为什么这有效:
如果一家公司有50名员工的个人资料中包含"SRE",那么他们在站点可靠性方面很成熟。如果他们只有2名,那么他们还没有准备好使用高级可观测性工具。
这告诉你:
示例:
搜索"[公司] + DevOps":
搜索"[公司] + SRE":
常见错误:
企业销售遵循明确的阶段和清晰的退出标准。未满足标准前不要推进阶段。
阶段 0 — 管道生成: 潜在客户开发 → 确认合格的兴趣 阶段 1 — 发现: 环境/痛点/需求 → 识别痛点,映射利益相关者 阶段 2 — 演示: 产品演示,建立支持者 → 识别支持者 阶段 3 — 价值验证: 概念验证/试用 → 完成技术验证 阶段 4 — 提案: 定价、条款、范围 → 交付提案,与 EB 达成一致 阶段 5 — 文件流程: 法务、采购、安全 → 获得批准 阶段 6 — 成交: 签署交易 → 移交客户成功部门
退出标准很重要:
在拥有支持者之前,不要从阶段 2 推进到阶段 3。 在满足概念验证成功标准之前,不要从阶段 3 推进到阶段 4。 在 EB 批准之前,不要从阶段 4 推进到阶段 5。
常见错误:
基于活动而非标准推进阶段。"我们演示了,所以我们在阶段 3"——但如果他们尚未同意进行概念验证,你仍然在阶段 2。
交易规模是否高于平均 ACV?
├─ 否 → 简化计划(摘要 + MEDDICC)
└─ 是 → 继续...
│
销售周期 >60 天?
├─ 是 → 完整客户计划
└─ 否 → 简化计划
MAP 是否每周更新?
├─ 是 → 健康
└─ 否 → 继续...
│
距离上次 MAP 更新是否 >3 周?
├─ 是 → 死亡交易(取消资格或重置)
└─ 否 → 有风险(向支持者升级)
你见过经济决策者(EB)吗?
├─ 否 → 暂时不要发送(先获得接触 EB 的机会)
└─ 是 → 继续...
│
EB 是否认同问题和成功指标?
├─ 是 → 发送提案
└─ 否 → 在发送前与 EB 达成一致
1. 太晚创建客户计划
2. MEDDICC 填满了假设
3. 过时的共同行动计划(MAP)
4. 只映射购买者
5. 忽视个人利益
6. 不跟踪交易健康状况
7. 跳过支持者验证
MAP 健康检查:
MEDDICC 验证:
个人利益问题:
客户计划检查清单:
基于在平台公司高速增长期间的企业销售经验,包含来自成交战略客户、驾驭复杂采购流程的规律,以及从惨痛教训中学到的:过时的 MAP = 死亡交易。这不是理论——而是我们因未跟踪健康指标而眼睁睁看着交易死亡,以及因及早验证 EB 一致性而促成交易成交的经验教训。
每周安装量
187
代码库
GitHub 星标数
26.9K
首次出现
6 天前
安全审计
安装于
codex169
gemini-cli168
opencode168
cursor166
github-copilot164
amp164
Strategic account planning and execution for enterprise deals. Turn complex sales cycles into systematic wins — or at least know when they're dying before you waste months.
Triggers:
Context:
The Pattern I've Seen:
The Mutual Action Plan (MAP) is the single best indicator of deal health. Not pipeline stage. Not verbal commitments. Not "they love the product."
The MAP tells you everything:
Healthy deal:
Dying deal:
Why This Happens:
When a deal is real, the customer wants it to happen. They're doing work. They're involving stakeholders. They're moving through their process.
When a deal is dying, you're doing all the work. They're "too busy." They'll "get back to you next week." The economic buyer is "traveling."
The 3-Week Rule:
If your MAP hasn't been updated in 3 weeks, the deal is dead — you just don't know it yet. I've never seen a deal close with a stale MAP. Not once in 11 years.
What to Do:
Week 1 of silence: Send MAP update: "Here's what we've completed. What's your status on [specific customer action]?"
Week 2 of silence: Escalate to champion: "Haven't heard back on MAP. Are we still on track for [date]? If priorities shifted, let me know."
Week 3 of silence: Qualify out or reset: "It seems like timing might not be right. Should we pause and reconnect in [timeframe], or is there a blocker I can help with?"
Common Mistake:
Keeping deals in pipeline because "they said they want it." Verbal interest ≠ action. If they're not doing work, they're not buying.
The Pattern:
You're 8 weeks into a deal. POC went great. Champion loves you. Technical validation complete. You send the proposal.
Then: radio silence.
What happened? You never met the Economic Buyer.
The Economic Buyer (EB) is the person who:
Not:
Why Deals Die Without EB Access:
You built the business case with your champion's assumptions. But the EB has different priorities:
When you send proposal to EB through the champion, EB sees:
Result: Deal stalls or dies.
The Framework: EB Validation Checklist
Before sending proposal, validate:
If you answered "no" to any, don't send the proposal yet.
How to Get EB Access:
Ask your champion: "Before we finalize pricing, I'd love 15 minutes with [EB name] to make sure we're aligned on outcomes and timeline. Can you intro us?"
If champion blocks: "I can handle that, you don't need to talk to them" → This is a red flag. Either champion doesn't have access (not a real champion) or they're afraid EB will kill the deal (which means deal is weak).
Push back: "I totally understand. At the same time, I want to make sure [EB] sees the full value before seeing the price. In my experience, when economic buyers aren't involved early, deals get delayed in procurement. Can we do a quick alignment call?"
Common Mistake:
Treating EB meeting as "nice to have." It's mandatory for any deal >$50K. No EB access = no deal.
The Pattern:
Enterprise software purchases are made by committees. But committees don't buy. People buy.
And people buy for personal reasons:
Framework: Personal Win Identification
For each stakeholder, map:
Professional Win:
Professional Risk:
Personal Motivations:
Example: VP of Engineering
Professional Win:
Professional Risk:
Personal Motivations:
How This Changes Your Pitch:
Generic pitch: "Our platform improves incident response time by 40%."
Personal win pitch: "You mentioned the on-call burden is burning out your team. We've seen teams reduce on-call pages by 40% in the first month, which helps with retention. And since you're focused on uptime metrics for the board, the improved response time shows up immediately in your QBR dashboards."
The Difference:
Generic = business case Personal = career case
Both matter. But personal wins close deals.
Common Mistake:
Selling only to the business problem. "This saves money. This improves efficiency." That's necessary but not sufficient. People need to see what's in it for them personally.
A complete account plan has four interconnected pieces. Each feeds the others.
Component 1: Account Summary
Component 2: Org Chart
Component 3: Opportunity Plan (MEDDICC)
Plus: Issues/Risks table with mitigation plans, help needed, responsible parties
Component 4: Mutual Action Plan (MAP)
Decision Criteria:
Full account plans worth investment for top 10-20% of accounts by potential deal size. For rest, use simplified version (summary + MEDDICC + next steps).
Common Mistakes:
Before engaging strategic account, quantify their investment in your domain via LinkedIn.
How to Execute:
Why This Works:
If a company has 50 employees with "SRE" in their profile, they're mature in site reliability. If they have 2, they're not ready for advanced observability tools.
This tells you:
Example:
Searching "[Company] + DevOps":
Searching "[Company] + SRE":
Common Mistakes:
Enterprise sales follows defined stages with clear exit criteria. Don't advance stages without meeting criteria.
Stage 0 — Pipeline Generation: Prospecting → Qualified interest confirmed Stage 1 — Discovery: Environment/pain/requirements → Pain identified, stakeholders mapped Stage 2 — Demonstrating: Product demo, champion building → Champion identified Stage 3 — Proving Value: POC/trial → Technical validation complete Stage 4 — Proposal: Pricing, terms, scope → Proposal delivered, EB aligned Stage 5 — Paper Process: Legal, procurement, security → Approvals secured Stage 6 — Closed Won: Deal signed → Customer success handoff
Exit Criteria Matter:
Don't move from Stage 2 → Stage 3 until you have a champion. Don't move from Stage 3 → Stage 4 until POC success criteria are met. Don't move from Stage 4 → Stage 5 until EB has approved.
Common Mistake:
Advancing stages based on activity, not criteria. "We demoed, so we're in Stage 3" — but if they haven't agreed to POC, you're still in Stage 2.
Is deal size above average ACV?
├─ No → Simplified plan (summary + MEDDICC)
└─ Yes → Continue...
│
Sales cycle >60 days?
├─ Yes → Full account plan
└─ No → Simplified plan
Is MAP being updated weekly?
├─ Yes → Healthy
└─ No → Continue...
│
Has it been >3 weeks since last MAP update?
├─ Yes → Dead deal (qualify out or reset)
└─ No → At risk (escalate to champion)
Have you met the Economic Buyer?
├─ No → Don't send yet (get EB access first)
└─ Yes → Continue...
│
Does EB agree on problem and success metrics?
├─ Yes → Send proposal
└─ No → Align with EB before sending
1. Creating account plan too late
2. MEDDICC filled with assumptions
3. Stale Mutual Action Plan
4. Mapping only the buyer
5. Ignoring personal wins
6. Not tracking deal health
7. Skipping champion validation
MAP Health Check:
MEDDICC Validation:
Personal Win Questions:
Account Plan Checklist:
Based on enterprise sales at a platform company during hypergrowth, with patterns from closing strategic accounts, navigating complex procurement processes, and learning the hard way that stale MAPs = dead deals. Not theory — lessons from watching deals die because we didn't track health metrics and closing deals because we validated EB alignment early.
Weekly Installs
187
Repository
GitHub Stars
26.9K
First Seen
6 days ago
Security Audits
Gen Agent Trust HubPassSocketPassSnykWarn
Installed on
codex169
gemini-cli168
opencode168
cursor166
github-copilot164
amp164
AI代理协作核心原则:提升开发效率的6大Agentic开发原则指南
7,600 周安装