Insight Selling

Empower customers with tailored insights to drive informed decisions and deepen engagement

Introduction

Solution Selling is a consultative methodology that helps sellers diagnose a buyer’s problems, shape a tailored solution, and co-create a business case that buyers can defend internally. It solves a common failure in complex sales: pitching features before understanding the problem and the buying context.

This explainer shows where Solution Selling fits, how to run it end to end, how to coach and inspect it, and how to adapt it without breaking its core ideas. It shines in outbound, discovery, evaluation, and negotiation for consultative B2B (SaaS, services, capital equipment), and it supports renewal/expansion when needs have evolved.

Definition & Provenance

Solution Selling (alongside SPIN, MEDDICC, Challenger, Sandler, NEAT, SNAP) is a methodology that centers the sales cycle on diagnosing problems and crafting outcomes, not pushing products.

Origin and evolution. Mike Bosworth popularized Solution Selling in the 1990s as a structured approach to “creating buyers in difficult selling markets,” later expanded by Keith Eades in The New Solution Selling (Bosworth, 1994; Eades, 2004). Practitioners today treat it as a flexible, buyer-centric framework that integrates with value quantification and modern inspection systems.

How it differs from adjacent methods.

•SPIN focuses on question flow; Solution Selling spans diagnosis + design + proof.

•Challenger leads with insight tension; Solution Selling emphasizes collaborative diagnosis before teaching.

•MEDDICC/MEDDPICC adds qualification and forecast inspection; Solution Selling adds the consultative storyline that feeds those fields (Rackham, 1988; Dixon & Adamson, 2011).

Buyer-Centric Principles

1.Diagnose before you prescribe

What: Explore business pain, current state, and constraints before proposing anything.

Why: Buyers act when they see their reality reflected and understood.

Boundary: Don’t interrogate—arrive prepared and keep context questions tight (Rackham, 1988).

2.Co-create outcomes

What: Translate pain into desired results, metrics, and success criteria with the buyer.

Why: Shared authorship increases internal advocacy and reduces later friction.

Boundary: Avoid promising outcomes you can’t prove; validate assumptions with finance.

3.Map value to stakeholders

What: Connect outcomes to each role’s incentives (operator, manager, executive, finance).

Why: Complex buying is consensus-driven; value must resonate across functions (Gartner, 2020).

Boundary: One generic ROI narrative rarely convinces everyone.

4.Prove, then progress

What: Demonstrate the result (reference, pilot, proof) before asking for commitment.

Why: Evidence reduces risk perception in complex, high-stakes buys.

Boundary: Time-box proofs; avoid endless “trials” without exit criteria.

5.Make the buyer the hero

What: Equip champions with a clear problem-impact-value story they can defend.

Why: Most decisions are made when you are not in the room.

Boundary: Keep it honest and simple; over-engineered decks backfire (Dixon & Adamson, 2011).

Ideal Fit & Contraindications

Great fit when…

•Deal size is moderate-to-large; cycle length is multi-step; multiple stakeholders.

•Buyers face ambiguous problems and need help scoping value.

•Security/procurement/legal steps require a defendable business case.

Risky or low-fit when…

•High-velocity PLG/self-serve or one-call closes.

•Pure inbound triage where the buyer already chose a SKU.

•RFP-only cycles with locked criteria and limited discovery access.

Signals to switch/hybridize

•Strong status-quo bias → add Challenger-style reframes to create urgency (Dixon & Adamson, 2011).

•Forecast noise or late-stage stalls → layer MEDDICC/MEDDPICC for inspection and paper-process control.

•Technical depth uncertainty → pair with an SE-led proof plan.

Process Map & Role Responsibilities

Funnel: lead → MQA → meeting → discovery → mutual plan → evaluation → business case → commit → close → onboarding.

•SDR: Validate ICP and trigger problem hypothesis. Set a clear discovery agenda. Pass context and hypothesis, not just a calendar invite.

•AE: Run consultative discovery, co-create outcomes, own the value narrative, and drive the mutual plan.

•SE: Validate feasibility, design proof (pilot/demo/POC) to evidence targeted outcomes.

•Manager/Coach: Inspect narrative quality, stakeholder mapping, and mutual plan health. Calibrate forecast to evidence, not enthusiasm.

Discovery & Qualification Framework

Core fields to capture (and keep current):

•Business problem (buyer words)

•Impact (cost/risk/time) and who owns it

•Desired outcomes and success metrics

•Stakeholders (roles, incentives, influence)

•Constraints (budget, timeline, compliance)

•Proof plan (what evidence, for whom, by when)

Question framework (blend SPIN-style prompts inside Solution Selling):

•Context: “How are you handling ___ today?”

•Problem: “Where does this break down or create risk?”

•Impact: “When that happens, what follows—cost, delay, customer impact?”

•Desired outcome: “If this were fixed, what would change and how would you measure it?”

•Feasibility & constraints: “What would make this practical in your environment?”

Fill-in-the-blank prompts

1.“The top problem the buyer named is ___ which impacts ___.”

2.“The outcome they want is ___ measured by ___ by ___ date.”

3.“Key stakeholders are ___ (pain owner), ___ (sponsor), and ___ (approver).”

4.“Proof we must show is ___ to de-risk ___ for ___.”

5.“Constraints to design around: ___ (budget), ___ (security), ___ (timeline).”

Mini-script (9 lines)

AE: I reviewed your Q2 report—okay to confirm how you manage onboarding today?

Buyer: We rely on manuals and ad hoc training.

AE: Where does that cause the most friction?

Buyer: Time-to-productivity varies wildly.

AE: When ramp stretches, what follows—missed quotas, support load?

Buyer: Both—plus churn risk.

AE: If we cut ramp by 30 percent, what would that unlock, and who would need to validate the result?

Buyer: Hiring plan relief; sales ops and finance would want proof.

AE: Let’s co-design a proof that shows time-to-productivity and finance-validated ROI.

Value, Business Case & Mutual Action Plan

From pain → impact → value → proof

•Pain: buyer’s language.

•Impact: quantified cost/risk/time.

•Value: the agreed outcome and metric.

•Proof: evidence that your solution achieves the outcome.

Lightweight mutual action plan (MAP)

•Discovery recap approved (AE + buyer, Week 1) – pain/impact/outcome confirmed.

•Proof plan defined (AE/SE + champion, Week 2) – metrics, method, exit criteria.

•Business case draft (AE + finance sponsor, Week 3) – assumptions validated.

•Security/procurement (buyer owners, Weeks 3–4) – documents submitted, redlines tracked.

•Signature (economic buyer, Week 5) – terms finalized.

Work with finance/procurement/security

•Involve finance early to pressure-test assumptions.

•Share security docs before the formal review to prevent stalls.

•Align procurement timelines within the MAP and forecast only after mapping paper process.

Tooling & CRM Instrumentation

Required fields & picklists

•Problem statement (free text, buyer words)

•Impact metric (value, owner)

•Outcome metric & time frame

•Stakeholder map (role, influence, last engagement)

•Proof plan (type, metric, exit criteria, date)

•Paper process status (legal, security, procurement)

Stage exit criteria (aligned to methodology milestones)

•Discovery: problem + impact quantified; outcome defined.

•Evaluation: proof plan agreed with success metric.

•Business case: finance-reviewed model attached.

•Commit: paper process mapped with dates/owners.

•Close: economic buyer approval recorded; MAP completed.

Manager dashboards/inspections

•% opps with current problem/impact/outcome notes in buyer language.

•Time to “proof plan agreed.”

•MAP milestone adherence and slippage reasons.

•Stakeholder coverage depth (functions touched, executive engagement).

Real-World Examples

1) SMB inbound

Setup: 40-person agency asks for pricing on project tracking.

Move: AE confirms problem (missed billables), quantifies impact (8–10% leakage), co-creates outcome (recover $5k/month), and designs a two-week proof showing captured hours.

Outcome: Closed in 14 days with finance-validated model.

Safeguard: Avoid over-engineering; keep proof small and time-boxed.

2) Mid-market outbound

Setup: SDR targets a 300-employee SaaS firm with onboarding churn.

Move: AE runs diagnosis; SE builds a limited pilot. Finance validates an ROI of 3.4x if ramp is reduced by 25%.

Outcome: Closed in 90 days with a rollout plan staged by cohort.

Safeguard: Document assumptions; share sensitivity analysis to avoid credibility gaps.

3) Enterprise multi-thread (security/procurement nuance)

Setup: Global bank explores fraud analytics.

Move: AE maps stakeholders (fraud ops, risk, IT security, procurement, finance). Proof plan shows a 20% lift in detection on a sanitized dataset; security review run in parallel with pre-submitted documents.

Outcome: 7-figure ARR; legal redlines completed on forecast thanks to early paper-process mapping.

Safeguard: Keep evidence role-specific—ops cares about lift; risk cares about auditability; finance cares about avoided losses.

4) Renewal/expansion

Setup: Year-2 renewal; usage is solid but new execs want broader reporting.

Move: Re-diagnose needs, quantify impact of limited visibility, co-create outcome (weekly exec dashboards) and add a proof slice.

Outcome: +30% expansion, renewal signed early.

Safeguard: Never assume last year’s value still fits; re-run diagnosis.

Common Pitfalls & How to Avoid Them

•Pitching too early → buyers feel sold, not understood. Fix: finish diagnosis and agree outcomes before proposing.

•Endless discovery → velocity drops. Fix: time-box; move to proof once impact and outcome are clear.

•Generic ROI → low credibility. Fix: use buyer data; involve finance; include sensitivity ranges.

•Single-threading → deal risk if champion leaves. Fix: map roles; align value to each stakeholder.

•Proofs with no exit criteria → “pilot purgatory.” Fix: define success metric, owner, and date up front.

•Ignoring paper process → late-stage slips. Fix: map legal/security/procurement during evaluation.

Measurement & Coaching (pragmatic, non-gamed)

Leading indicators

•Discovery quality: problem + quantified impact + desired outcome captured in buyer language.

•Proof readiness: proof plan with metric, owner, exit criteria.

•Stakeholder depth: number of functions engaged with tailored value notes.

•MAP progression: next milestone has owner/date and was reconfirmed.

Lagging indicators

•Conversion from evaluation to business case and commit.

•Forecast accuracy once proof passes.

•Renewal/expansion health tied to achieved outcomes.

Call coaching & inspection prompts

1.Which sentence in your notes is verbatim buyer pain?

2.How did you quantify impact—cost, risk, or time—and who owns it?

3.What outcome will finance accept, and what assumption will they challenge?

4.What specific proof will de-risk the decision for security/procurement?

5.Which stakeholder lacks a tailored value line?

6.What is the next MAP exit criterion and who is responsible?

Ethics, Inclusivity & Buyer Experience

Respect autonomy. Avoid coercive framing and dark patterns. Be transparent about assumptions, trade-offs, and risks. Provide accessible, plain-language materials; explain acronyms. Adapt to cultural and role differences—operators value workflow clarity, executives value financial outcomes.

Do not use when…

•The purchase is low-stakes or one-call transactional.

•Incentives push speed over understanding.

•The buyer cannot share data (regulatory limits) and you cannot design a credible proof.

Table: Quick Reference for Solution Selling

Stage/Moment	What good looks like	Coach asks	Risk signal	Safeguard/next move
Discovery	Problem + impact quantified; outcome agreed	“Which notes are in buyer words?”	Vague impact	Convert to cost/risk/time with owner
Evaluation	Proof plan defined (metric, owner, exit)	“What ends the proof?”	Pilot with no success gate	Add pass/fail criteria and date
Business case	Finance-reviewed model attached	“Who validated assumptions?”	Generic ROI	Involve finance; add sensitivity
Commit	Paper process mapped	“Where are legal/security now?”	Unknown redlines	Submit docs early; track dates
Close	Champion equipped to sell internally	“What deck will they use?”	Seller-centric materials	Create a buyer-ready one-pager

Comparison & Hybridization

•With MEDDICC/MEDDPICC: Use Solution Selling to produce the narrative content (pain, impact, outcomes, proof). Use MEDDICC to inspect stakeholder coverage, decision criteria, and paper process.

•With Challenger: If buyers misframe the problem, open with a calibrated insight to create productive tension; then switch to Solution Selling for collaborative diagnosis and proof (Dixon & Adamson, 2011).

Safe hybrid pattern: Solution Selling for diagnosis/design + MEDDICC for inspection + MAP for execution.

Change Management & Rollout Plan

Pilot → enablement → certification → inspection cadence

•Pilot (4–6 weeks): 1–2 teams. Track discovery quality and time to “proof plan agreed.”

•Enablement: role-play diagnosis to proof transitions; publish stakeholder-specific value lines.

•Certification: score recorded calls on problem/impact/outcome clarity; review a sample proof plan.

•Inspection cadence: weekly deal reviews using the quick-reference table; monthly dashboard read-outs.

Collateral to ship

•1-pager cheat sheet (questions, value lines by persona).

•Call guide with proof plan templates.

•CRM field updates and stage exit criteria.

•Manager playbook with coaching prompts.

Timeline & adoption risks

•Expect 60–90 days to steady behavior.

•Risks: admin bloat, scriptiness, “pilot purgatory.”

•Mitigations: limit fields, coach for brevity, time-box proofs with exit criteria.

Conclusion

Solution Selling excels when buyers face ambiguous problems and need a defendable path from pain → impact → outcome → proof. Avoid it for transactional cycles or when incentives reward speed over understanding.

One actionable takeaway this week: pick one live deal and write a single buyer-verbatim problem line, one quantified impact metric, and one outcome metric with an owner. If you cannot, your next meeting is a diagnosis session—not a demo.

Checklist — Do / Avoid

•Capture the problem in the buyer’s words.

•Quantify impact with cost/risk/time and an owner.

•Co-create outcomes and define success metrics.

•Time-box proofs with exit criteria.

•Involve finance early; share security docs early.

•Maintain a mutual action plan with owners and dates.

•Inspect narrative quality, not just field completion.

•Respect autonomy; be transparent about assumptions and risk.

Avoid

•Pitching before diagnosis.

•Endless discovery with no proof plan.

•Generic ROI claims.

•Single-threading the deal.

•Pilots with no success gate.

•Ignoring paper process until late.

•Forecasting on hope instead of evidence.

References

•Bosworth, M. (1994). Solution Selling: Creating Buyers in Difficult Selling Markets. McGraw-Hill.**

•Eades, K. (2004). The New Solution Selling: The Revolutionary Sales Process That Is Changing the Way People Sell. McGraw-Hill.

•Rackham, N. (1988). SPIN Selling. McGraw-Hill.

•Dixon, M. & Adamson, B. (2011). The Challenger Sale. Portfolio/Penguin.

•Gartner (2020). Winning the Complex B2B Buying Journey (industry research on multi-stakeholder decisions).