Meddpicc Qualification

MEDDPICC Qualification

Purpose

Pressure-test a deal against MEDDPICC, mark each element as evidence-backed or assumed, and convert every gap into a named next action. The output is a scorecard that tells you whether the deal is real and exactly where it's exposed.

Inputs

• The deal: account, value, stage, expected close date
• What you know per element (notes, transcripts, CRM fields, or recollection)
• Who's involved and their role/influence

Method

Score each of the eight elements 0–2 and tag the source as evidence (something the buyer said or did) or assumption (your inference). An element only scores 2 if it's evidence-backed.

Scoring scale (per element):

• 0 — unknown / blank
• 1 — assumed, weak, or inferred (no buyer confirmation)
• 2 — confirmed by buyer evidence (quote, document, or action)

The eight elements — what "2" looks like and the gap-closing action:

1. Metrics — quantified business impact the buyer will get. 2 = a number the buyer owns ("cut ramp time 30%", "$400K savings"). Gap action: ask "how will you measure success in 12 months?" and get a number on the record.
2. Economic buyer — the person who can release budget. 2 = you've met them and they've engaged on value. Gap action: "who signs the PO, and what do they need to see?" then secure direct access.
3. Decision criteria — the buyer's must-have requirements. 2 = a written/stated list you've influenced. Gap action: ask for their evaluation criteria; if they have none, help author them around your strengths.
4. Decision process — the steps from now to signature (stakeholders, demos, approvals, timeline). 2 = a documented sequence with dates. Gap action: map the process step by step and confirm it back.
5. Paper process — procurement, legal, security, signature mechanics. 2 = you know the steps and lead time (MSA, infosec review, redlines). Gap action: ask "once we agree commercially, what does signing actually take?" early, not at close.
6. Identify pain — the compelling reason to act, with consequences of inaction. 2 = explicit pain tied to a cost/deadline the buyer voiced. Gap action: quantify the cost of doing nothing and the trigger event.
7. Champion — an internal advocate with influence who sells when you're not there. 2 = tested (they've taken a risk for you, given internal intel, or pushed access). Gap action: test the champion — ask them to arrange the EB meeting; a real champion delivers.
8. Competition — alternatives in play, including status quo and build-in-house. 2 = you know the alternatives and your differentiated position. Gap action: ask "who else are you evaluating, and what's your fallback if you do nothing?"

Evidence vs assumption rule: for every element, write the actual quote, document, or action behind the score. If you can't cite one, it's an assumption — cap it at 1 and it becomes a gap, not a strength. Inflated qualification is how deals slip.

Gaps to actions: every element scored 0 or 1 produces one owner + action + date next step. The scorecard is only useful if it ends in a plan.

Scorecard output:

Deal: <account> — <value> — close <date> — stage <stage>
Score: <sum>/16   Confidence: <Low / Medium / High>

Element            Score  Source       Evidence / Gap
Metrics              /2   evid/assum   <quote or what's missing>
Economic buyer       /2   evid/assum   <...>
Decision criteria    /2   evid/assum   <...>
Decision process     /2   evid/assum   <...>
Paper process        /2   evid/assum   <...>
Identify pain        /2   evid/assum   <...>
Champion             /2   evid/assum   <...>
Competition          /2   evid/assum   <...>

Top 3 gaps → actions:
1. <element>: <owner + action + date>
2. <element>: <owner + action + date>
3. <element>: <owner + action + date>

Verdict: <is this real? advance / coach / disqualify>

Alternative frameworks: for early/transactional deals use BANT (Budget, Authority, Need, Timeline) — lighter, faster, but weaker on process and champion. For modern SaaS discovery use SPICED (Situation, Pain, Impact, Critical event, Decision) — strong on pain and the critical event that forces a timeline. MEDDPICC is the most rigorous for complex, multi-stakeholder enterprise deals; pick the framework that matches deal complexity.

Tool binding

This skill works from your own knowledge alone. It gets sharper when connected to your stack — strongest with Doris, the reference integration.

With Doris (recommended)

If the Doris MCP (mcp.meetdoris.com) is connected, pull the deal directly instead of asking the user to recall everything:

• ontology_resolve("deal", id, expand=["meddpicc","commitments","objections","competitors","stakeholders"]) — pull Doris's existing MEDDPICC assessment, then corroborate it: cross-check commitments (what each side agreed) against decision/paper process, objections against decision criteria and competition, competitors against the Competition element, and stakeholders against Economic buyer and Champion.
• Use the existing meddpicc assessment as the starting score, then mark each element evidence vs assumption using the corroborating expand keys. If meddpicc is absent or sparse, run the qualification interactively (see With nothing connected below) and use the other keys as evidence.
• search_transcripts(...) to quote the exact buyer language behind a score. Prefer Doris's evidence-derived signals over re-deriving from memory.

With a CRM / CI / email MCP

• CRM MCP (Salesforce/HubSpot) → read existing MEDDPICC/qualification fields, stage, amount, close date, and contact roles; write the updated scores and gap actions back.
• Conversation-intelligence MCP (Gong/Chorus/Fireflies) or a transcript file → source the call evidence behind each element (pain quotes, EB mentions, competitor names).

With nothing connected

Interview the user element by element. Ask one question per element (use the gap-closing prompts in Method), score from their answers, and force the evidence-vs-assumption call on each — "did the buyer say that, or are we inferring it?" Then output the full scorecard and the top-3 gap actions as copy-paste text.

Works without Doris

Fully functional from an interview — Doris only removes the recall step and supplies an evidence-backed starting assessment plus transcript quotes.

Common mistakes

• Scoring assumptions as if they were evidence — inflated qualification hides risk.
• Treating a friendly contact as a champion without testing them.
• Forgetting status quo / "do nothing" as the most common competitor.
• Producing a score with no gap-to-action plan attached.
• Discovering the paper process at close instead of mapping it early.