Everyone in enterprise sales uses some semblance of a qualification methodology to focus their team’s time and energy. Since we can’t control buying behavior (sadly), what we can do is focus on those prospects who are most likely to make a purchase decision.
BANT (Budget, Authority, Need, Timing) was developed by IBM in the 1960s for transactional sales, and it’s still a tried-and-true choice for many enterprise software sales teams today.
- Budget: Do they have budget?
- Authority: Who decides?
- Need: Do they need it?
- Timeline: When will they buy?
Under the old “tired-wired” framework, let’s look at each element to see if we need to “unlearn” BANT, as it’s likely the type of “success trap” that we covered in our initial blog—a strategy that got you here but will not get you there.
Budget: This one might be the easiest to undermine. A binary “Do they have budget?” query can be very misleading. As we have all likely experienced in our personal/professional lives, two seemingly opposite truths can coexist:
- We can “have budget” and not be able to spend it. How often do we get a budget approved for next fiscal year that has a line item for a new piece of software (that will hopefully transform the organization), only to have that budget frozen, reallocated, or simply just moved to another slot, presumably later in the year?
- We can have “zero budget” but can move other budgeted funds around to make space for a critical application. This “go-get” budget is often more diagnostic of a sale that will close than a simple line-item in a budget from months/quarters ago.
“Budget” is therefore something that should, of course, be probed in an enterprise sales process, but its presence (or absence) is far from all the information you require, especially when the “need” is critical.
Let’s skip “authority” for a minute and talk about “need.” This element might be the true Achilles heel of the BANT framework.
The “tired” list for the “need” element is long and problematic:
- “Need” assumes the buyer truly understands their problem and isn’t currently solving it. This frame of reference is often backward-looking and doesn’t anticipate changes that will result in latent or unrecognized pain. In my old consulting days, we used to call this the “presenting problem,” which was the one the customer came in to solve and often wasn’t the same as the final diagnosis. Or, in other words, “perceived” need vs “actual” need.
- The analysis can misidentify “who” has the need—the “buyer,” the organization, or both? Your champion might “need” the solution to do their job better, but that’s a far stretch from the enterprise needing the solution via a defined business case (e.g., increasing support response times by 5%). Relying on your champion’s assessment can be misleading because a singular, perceived champion often won’t reflect organizational consensus, and it might give your sales process a false sense of security.
- Needs are inherently subjective/relative. Look no further than Maslow’s hierarchy of needs to see that all needs are both subjective and relative to one another. Physical needs (food, water, shelter, etc.) create pain and tend to be more urgent than needs further up the pyramid. Assuming the need is real and urgent, it’s still critical to map to the other needs of the organization, which is often difficult to do in isolation.
- Most importantly, it overlooks inertia. Most enterprise software deals are lost to a buyer who simply does nothing, often because the cost of doing nothing is nothing. In a recent survey, this deal loss category was at 61%, the highest of all possible reasons. While it’s difficult to square the circle of a prospect who has a “need” but also doesn’t feel any pain if they do nothing, this element is the number one item that needs to be teased out in a modern qualification framework. I always have my sales reps probe around this area by asking sometimes dramatic questions that center on pain and timing (e.g., “Does anyone get fired if this doesn’t go live by X date?”). Any framework that doesn’t solve this “need” query fails categorically.
BANT needs to be unlearned. Even if it did/does work for your sales organization, you might be selling despite this flawed methodology. It might just be a matter of time before what got you here doesn’t get you there.
So, once it’s unlearned, what should you do? As noted infamously by Roy Scheider of Jaws fame: “You’re gonna need a bigger boat,” or in this case, a more complex and nuanced sales qualification methodology.
MEDDIC is certainly an option as it provides a structured way to accurately qualify, map influence, and drive consensus in complex deals, but it requires more discipline. And the change management aspects aren’t trivial. **Note, I wouldn’t switch sales qualification “horses” mid-year—I typically use an SKO to launch something new like this, if possible.
Recently, I’ve been using Maestro Group’s DRIVE framework with great success. They position DRIVE as an information-gathering framework—not just a standard sales qualification tool. Here’s what DRIVE stands for and how it’s structured to maintain momentum in complex sales cycles:
- D = Decision
Focuses on identifying who is involved in the decision-making process—understanding the ecosystem of stakeholders who can influence or block a deal.
- R = Resources
Goes beyond simple budget considerations. It addresses the capacity to execute, including training, IT lift, and overall organizational bandwidth.
- I = Impact
Centers on the consequence of change, mapping out what happens if nothing changes (status quo) and why solving the problem matters.
- V = Velocity
Captures timing and urgency—when the solution needs to be in place, why that timing matters, and the consequences of missing deadlines.
- E = Expectations
The most unique element: this covers the vision for success, aspirational goals, and emotional alignment—along with identifying potential risks or roadblocks that could impede realizing that vision.
Having a modern and well‐defined sales qualification methodology (and following it religiously) dramatically improves outcomes (closing earlier, fewer wasted cycles, better predictability). In fact, sales rep outperformance (versus their peers) is dramatic. According to a recent survey, “Top performers are 588% more likely to follow a qualification methodology effectively, and 366% more likely to close an opportunity at the discovery stage.”
So, while no qualification methodology is perfect, now is the time to make sure you unlearn/relearn a framework that will ensure success in the future, and not just hang on to the one that got you here.
In my next blog, I’ll take on what you need to unlearn about the use of BDRs in the sales process. Stay tuned.
Want more tips for avoiding the success trap? Subscribe to the Maestro Mastery blog below!
