Sarah, an enterprise software sales rep, was preparing for a discovery call with a large manufacturing company.
Instead of her usual approach, she decided to use the interactive Value Validation Framework (VVF):
- Objectives
- Tactics
- Root Cause Problems
- Metrics
- Targets
- Timelines
On the call, Sarah had three key stakeholders:
- CIO
- VP of Operations
- Head of IT
She began by sharing version 1.0 of the VVF (primed with the help of GenAI).
There was a broad understanding and alignment on the stated objectives in VVF 1.0.
Sarah then shared the tactics 1.0.
This revealed misalignments - the CIO had been pushing for cloud migration, while the Head of IT was focused on customizing their existing on-premise systems.
Digging into root causes, Sarah uncovered that siloed data and outdated infrastructure were key issues, but each stakeholder prioritized these differently.
When discussing metrics, targets, and timelines, more divergences emerged:
- The CIO wanted IT costs reduced by 20% within a year
- The VP of Operations wanted 15% efficiency gain in 18 months
- The Head of IT did not have concrete targets
Rather than immediately pitching her solution, Sarah facilitated a discussion around these misalignments.
Sarah played the role of a guide helping the group agree on prioritizing data integration and modernizing infrastructure as key tactics.
Not surprisingly, the execs wanted more time on these issues and with Sarah.
In the subsequent follow-up meeting, with Sarah’s facilitation, the team aligned on a VVF 2.0 with shared metrics, targets, and timelines:
10% cost reduction and 10% efficiency gain within 15 months, with specific metrics for each department.
Sarah helped the key stakeholders, not to align to her solution, but rather to align amongst themselves.
This is the next generation of Discovery.
