Incentive Compensation and Sales Performance Management Survey

Archive for the 'Technical Tips' Category

Merced Incentive Management (MIM) Review - Part 3

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (5 votes, average: 4.8 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...

Calculators
Calculators seem to be the feature where Merced Incentive Management is the most different compared to other solutions.  Instead of using “rules” like in Callidus TrueComp and Varicent SPM, or using “components” like ZS Associates Javelin, Merced uses calculators which consist of a multi-dimensional table, very similar to an Excel spreadsheet.  Each cell can contain any type of information including formulas referencing other cells.  Let’s look at some calculators.

Transaction Calculator
This calculator runs for every transaction that has been identified by the plan. All the transaction fields are available as inputs, and outputs are written back to the transaction itself allowing for per transaction commission and bonus to be generated.  An example of this would be an individual sale that is given a percentage commission based on the product sold.


Summary Calculator
This calculator runs once per period per payee and uses aggregated data as inputs such as Total Net Sales, Total Revenue, Total YTD Margin etc. The business rule is calculated after any transaction calculators have run and allows complete control over outputs including overwriting performance and measurement data. An example of this calculator would be a plan that measured the past 6 months average performance and paid based on that average with a cap on the maximum commission that could be earned in a year.

Table Calculator
This calculator is used to store tabular data and information.  Table calculators are reference by any of the other calculator types by their reference name.  For example the function =PRATES(C1,C2) might pass in a product name and a date to a product table and return a commission rate.


Function Calculator
This calculator is used to encapsulate complex business rules and allows administrators and users to break down large calculations into a series of functions that can be reused.

This should provide a good idea of how Merced Incentive Management handles calculations.  Here is a final example of a calculator where some logic is defined:

The next and final post will describe some of the additional features from Merced Incentive Management, including reporting, processing, the payee’s interface and ETL.

Tags: , , , , , ,

Related Posts:
Merced Systems
ZS Associates

Sales Performance Management Implementation Catch 22

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (1 votes, average: 3 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...

I know I said that building should only start once design is completed…  this would be ideal, but it’s not always possible.  Why not?  People often wait to finalize the compensation plans before starting the planning process.  Typically plans are not until a few months before the next fiscal year, so that usually leaves very little time for implementation.  What more, the analyze and design phases rely on those plans to be completed. 

So can we start implementing without the comp plans?  It depends.  More often than not, we have a very good idea of what the plans will look like, how the calculations will be performed, which bonus exist.  The information that is lacking is the quota amounts, bonus amounts, or which particular bonus applies to whom.  Even without this information, it is possible to start working on the analyze and design phases.  

With this in mind, if we can map out all the information we know, it will be possible to take big leaps in our initial phases, and even in implementing major components of our sales performance system.  Once the missing details become available, it will be time to revisit the documents to keep them up to date.  

This should give more time to properly implement the system without cutting corners, and to meet the deadlines.  Like I said, this is not an ideal scenario, but it is much better than waiting until 3 weeks before the required “go-live” date to start implementing. 

Tags: , , , , ,

Related Posts:
Which SPM Vendor “Sucks” the Most?
8 Predictions for the Incentive Compensation Industry in 2009

6 Phases of the Sales Performance Management Delivery Model

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (4 votes, average: 3.25 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...

he SPM Delivery Model consists of 6 phases:
• Analyze
• Design
• Build
• Test
• Acceptance Test
• Deployment

SPM Delivery Model

SPM Delivery Model

Analyze Phase: The analyze phase consists of describing functional and non-functional requirements.  At the end of the implementation, we should be able to look at the system and confirm each requirement is met.

Design Phase: The design phase consist of planning how the system will meet the requirements.  The major deliverables include a functional design document (larger systems may have multiple such documents for each major component.  It will also consist of a solution design document, providing more details about the implementation.  This solution design should have “just enough” information.  Too little and the implementers will be left guessing and interpreting the design.  Too many details will cause the document to quickly become meaningless by not being kept up to date as the system evolves.  The design phase also includes planning the tests, and as I discussed before on this blog, to create test scenarios.

Build Phase: The build phase is repeated for each compensation plan, or for each major component which can stand alone and produce verifiable results.  Unlike a pure rapid prototyping methodology, it is a good idea to only start building when the requirements and design phases are well defined to ensure a strong design.  Unlike the waterfall model, this avoids a “big bang” approach, trying to integrate all plans at once over a long period of time and hoping everything will work.

Test Phase: Testing should be performed after every small build iteration, to ensure the use cases defined in the design phase work as expected.  This goes beyond unit testing and test multiple conditions and integration with previously developed plan.

Acceptance Test Phase: Once we are done developing and testing every plan, we are ready to put it all together and either load data from a previous month, or load the data with which we are going live.    This is where the stakeholders will agree and sign-off on the implementation.

Deploy: Go-live time!

Tags: , , , , ,

Related Posts:
SPM Delivery Model - Intro to Development Life Cycles
Enterprise Incentive Management News

SPM Delivery Model - Intro to Development Life Cycles

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (2 votes, average: 3 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...

The implementation of a sales performance compensation system requires several steps, which are often referred to as the “System Development Life Cycle” or SDLC.  These steps include project initiation, requirement gathering, design, building, testing, deploying and maintaining the application.  No question there.

Each company and often each client with whom I worked had a different flavor of such methodologies.  Some work better in some cases, some work better in others, and I feel like some work particularly well for SPM software integration.  Software vendors often also have some flavor of a development methodology which promises to deploy their solution more quickly, but often by taking shortcuts.

The “SPM Delivery Model”, is my own version of a methodology to deliver a sales performance management system on-time, on budget, and without any defects.  The idea is to follow a repeatable process to manage the system deployment. What drives the need for yet another delivery model is that with an SPM system, unlike other type of software applications, the input and outputs are usually well known; we have historical data, we have compensation plans, etc.  Using a linear “waterfall” model is the best way to run into problems too late in the process.  Following an agile methodology or a rapid prototyping methodology can result in poor design and re-usability issues.

At a high level, the SPM delivery model appears to follow the waterfall model for the requirement gathering and design phases, and then follows a an agile methodology and a test-driven methodology for the build and test phases, where each iteration is repeated for each compensation plan.  Once every iteration is done,  the waterfall flow resumes for UAT, deployment and change management.

I will describe this in more details in my next post.

Tags: , , , , ,

Related Posts:
6 Phases of the Sales Performance Management Delivery Model
Best Practices for Sales Compensation Management

LeapComp featured in Arcadia Solutions’ Q3 Newsletter

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (1 votes, average: 3 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...

My entry on Offshoring SPM Communication Challenges was featured in Arcadia Solution’s quarterly newsletter.  Arcadia Solutions is a business and technology consulting firm with a division focused on incentive compensation solutions. Their newsletter also has 2 good articles:

 

The first article is called “On-Demand vs. On-Premise - What works for you“.  Arcadia identified 3 key issues which drive this decision: comp plan complexity, technological capacity and data integration complexity. 

 

To this list, as I talked before a few times on this blog, I would add a few more drivers: the cost structure (subscription fee per person per month for on-demand rather than a larger upfront fee, the number of participants, and the number of transactions (on-premise applications can usually handle a bigger load).  On-demand (also called Software-as-a-Service SAAS) offers many other benefits such as generally quicker to go live and easier to implement, frequent automatic updates and lower operating costs.  On-premise SPM solutions can offer more integration flexibility, and more control (such as direct access to the database which is usually not the case with on-demand solutions). 

 

The second article is “Build vs. Buy - How do I Decide What’s Best for my Unique Business” and discusses some of the pros and cons of buying a commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) software versus building  a custom system. 

 

This is something I have not written about, mostly because I didn’t think it was a question companies were still asking themselves, with so many mature COTS solutions available.  Unless there is a need to perform something that a COTS application cannot do, there should be no reason to build a custom application.  If there is something an ICM COTS cannot do, it might be time to review your comp plans!

Tags: , , , , , ,

Related Posts:
Webinar: Demystifying the Complexity of Sales Performance Management – Business vs Technology
Incentive Compensation Meets HR at The Super Sexy HR Carnival

New web forum for the EIM Community - Get your Answers Now!

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)
Loading ... Loading ...

Today I came across a web forum called “Ask Jon!” by OpenSymmetry. It’s a great knowledge exchange platform where anyone can submit questions and answers.

Most posts are currently related to Callidus TrueComp, but there are new categories to discuss solutions by many other SPM vendors such as nGenera, Oracle, Practique & Merced, Sungard, Varicent, Xactly, etc.
Such forums are only as good as the content being posted, so I encourage everyone to visit and contribute in making this forum a one-stop shop for Sales Performance related information.
Of course my blog is still THE number one source of SPM information, but I may not [always] be able to answer all your questions, about every product on the market.

Don’t wait, go have a look and sign-up.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Related Posts:
Accord/Loma Insurance Systems Forum
Versata 2009 Customer Forum