Turn your best rep's playbook into workflows every rep can run

Pulling their stack, spend trend, and any operating signals worth opening on.

Vertex runs SAP ECC with Siemens Teamcenter for PLM and a separate Windchill install from an acquisition. IT spend is up 14% year over year, concentrated in supply-chain tooling. They're hiring six integration engineers in Rotterdam. Strongest opener: the spend increase paired with the integration hiring — they're funding a consolidation project right now.

Fair. Reframing around the dual-PLM problem specifically.

The dual PLM estate is the better wedge, and it's more defensible than the spend line. Teamcenter and Windchill both survived the 2024 acquisition, and their last annual filing names PLM consolidation as an unrealised integration synergy — so this is a commitment they've already made publicly, not a problem you're introducing. Intent data shows research on PLM migration tooling starting nine weeks ago. Open with: "Most companies carrying two PLM systems after an acquisition tell us the engineering-change process is where it hurts first." That names their situation without needing your product in the sentence.

Checking the account against the signals that usually predict slippage.

Three things weaken the forecast: 1. Their IT spend is flat over four quarters, and this category has no line of its own. 2. Headcount in the sponsoring function fell 8% since Q1 — your champion may have less scope than when you met. 3. No procurement or vendor-management signals, which usually appear four to six weeks before a contract this size closes. None of that kills the deal, but a same-quarter close needs an explanation for the missing procurement activity.

Checking what the funding actually changes.

The funding changes the spend objection but sharpens the second one. Stated use of proceeds is capacity expansion and debt refinancing — no software or digital line item. So there's fresh capital but no budget line you can point to for this purchase, which means your sponsor is competing for discretionary money rather than spending an allocated budget. That makes the missing procurement signal more concerning, not less: with allocated budget, silence often just means an efficient process. Without it, silence usually means the request hasn't been made yet. Revised read: the deal is real, the quarter is optimistic. Ask your champion whether the request is already submitted.

Reading the compensation discussion in their latest proxy.

Their annual incentive weights three measures — the split below is illustrative of the structure rather than exact figures. The short-term plan leans on margin and free cash flow; the long-term plan is relative shareholder return. So a CFO-level conversation lands better on margin durability and cash conversion than on growth.

Better question — checking how the measures cascade below the CFO.

They are not aligned, and that changes who you should be selling to. Segment leaders are measured on segment operating income, which is struck before the corporate allocations the CFO's margin measure includes. A project that raises segment cost to lower total cost helps the CFO's number and hurts theirs — so your economic buyer and your likely blocker are paid on opposing measures. The committee member whose incentives point the same way as yours is operations leadership, not the CFO: they carry cash-conversion exposure without the segment-income conflict. Suggested move: get operations into the room before the CFO meeting, so the business case arrives already reconciled.