Home / Sales process assessment

SaleQMS assessment · 5.0

How capable is your sales system?

Score current organisational practice, then rate the strength of supporting evidence. Use N/A only where a practice is genuinely outside the defined process context.

9 system dimensions5 maturity levels90 day action horizon

Diagnostic boundary: This is a structured self-assessment—not a certification audit, external benchmark or psychometrically validated instrument. Results indicate where to investigate, not conformity.

1 · Rate practiceUse behaviourally anchored maturity from 1 to 5.

2 · Rate evidenceDistinguish assertion, sampled evidence and consistent evidence.

3 · Examine consequencesPrioritise gaps by customer, commercial and operational risk.

1. Customer needs are confirmed before a solution is proposed.1 Ad hoc · 3 Defined · 5 Evidenced and improvingEvidence strength Failure consequence

2. Changes in requirements are identified and communicated.1 Ad hoc · 3 Defined · 5 Evidenced and improvingEvidence strength Failure consequence

3. The intended customer outcome and acceptance criteria are recorded.1 Ad hoc · 3 Defined · 5 Evidenced and improvingEvidence strength Failure consequence

4. The sales process has clear inputs, outputs and decision criteria.1 Ad hoc · 3 Defined · 5 Evidenced and improvingEvidence strength Failure consequence

5. Interfaces with marketing, delivery and support are defined.1 Ad hoc · 3 Defined · 5 Evidenced and improvingEvidence strength Failure consequence

6. Different levels of commercial risk trigger proportionate controls.1 Ad hoc · 3 Defined · 5 Evidenced and improvingEvidence strength Failure consequence

7. A process owner is accountable for sales-process performance.1 Ad hoc · 3 Defined · 5 Evidenced and improvingEvidence strength Failure consequence

8. People are competent for the decisions and commitments they make.1 Ad hoc · 3 Defined · 5 Evidenced and improvingEvidence strength Failure consequence

9. Authorities and escalation routes are understood and used.1 Ad hoc · 3 Defined · 5 Evidenced and improvingEvidence strength Failure consequence

10. Commercial and delivery risks are reviewed proportionately.1 Ad hoc · 3 Defined · 5 Evidenced and improvingEvidence strength Failure consequence

11. Opportunities are prioritised using evidence, fit and capacity.1 Ad hoc · 3 Defined · 5 Evidenced and improvingEvidence strength Failure consequence

12. Risk responses and key assumptions remain visible through the pursuit.1 Ad hoc · 3 Defined · 5 Evidenced and improvingEvidence strength Failure consequence

13. Offers are reviewed for feasibility before release.1 Ad hoc · 3 Defined · 5 Evidenced and improvingEvidence strength Failure consequence

14. Exceptions and non-standard commitments require explicit authority.1 Ad hoc · 3 Defined · 5 Evidenced and improvingEvidence strength Failure consequence

15. Scope, exclusions, dependencies and acceptance conditions are unambiguous.1 Ad hoc · 3 Defined · 5 Evidenced and improvingEvidence strength Failure consequence

16. Delivery confirms that handover information is sufficient.1 Ad hoc · 3 Defined · 5 Evidenced and improvingEvidence strength Failure consequence

17. Accepted requirements, assumptions and changes are traceable.1 Ad hoc · 3 Defined · 5 Evidenced and improvingEvidence strength Failure consequence

18. Open issues at handover have owners, dates and customer communication.1 Ad hoc · 3 Defined · 5 Evidenced and improvingEvidence strength Failure consequence

19. Measures cover customer, flow, quality and commercial outcomes.1 Ad hoc · 3 Defined · 5 Evidenced and improvingEvidence strength Failure consequence

20. Management reviews evidence and acts on material variation.1 Ad hoc · 3 Defined · 5 Evidenced and improvingEvidence strength Failure consequence

21. Metric definitions, sources, owners and review frequencies are controlled.1 Ad hoc · 3 Defined · 5 Evidenced and improvingEvidence strength Failure consequence

22. Sales-related errors and complaints are recorded and corrected.1 Ad hoc · 3 Defined · 5 Evidenced and improvingEvidence strength Failure consequence

23. Recurring failure causes are investigated across functions.1 Ad hoc · 3 Defined · 5 Evidenced and improvingEvidence strength Failure consequence

24. Containment protects the customer while corrective action is developed.1 Ad hoc · 3 Defined · 5 Evidenced and improvingEvidence strength Failure consequence

25. Win/loss and delivery outcomes lead to process changes.1 Ad hoc · 3 Defined · 5 Evidenced and improvingEvidence strength Failure consequence

26. Improvement actions are owned, verified and sustained.1 Ad hoc · 3 Defined · 5 Evidenced and improvingEvidence strength Failure consequence

27. The organisation checks whether changes improved customer and business outcomes.1 Ad hoc · 3 Defined · 5 Evidenced and improvingEvidence strength Failure consequence

Scoring: displayed maturity is evidence-adjusted. N/A items are excluded and reported. Validate priorities with multiple roles and representative records.

Compare leadership, sales, quality and delivery perspectives.

Open comparison workspace

How to interpret maturity

A score is a starting point—not proof.

Stronger maturity requires progressively better evidence that the practice exists, is used consistently, produces the intended effect and improves.

1 · AD HOCDepends on individuals.

2 · REPEATABLESome shared practice exists.

3 · DEFINEDExpected work is clear.

4 · CONTROLLEDUse and variation are monitored.

5 · EFFECTIVEOutcomes support the claim.

IMPROVINGEvidence changes the system.

OwnerSaleQMS editorial

Expert reviewCommercial & quality method

StatusControlled · Structural model

Reviewed22 Aug 2026 · event-driven

How capable is your sales system?

Compare leadership, sales, quality and delivery perspectives.

A score is a starting point—not proof.

Assess

Apply

Improve