I really like the topic here, but it has prompted a question I'd love to get your thoughts on when it comes to Discovery Work vs Delivery Work. Consider Enterprise B2B Sales. The front end of the Sales effort involves Discovery work before any selling begins, as you need to answer questions like "Why is the customer buying? Why are they buying now? Why might they buy from us? before you scope the opportunity through systematic collection of information (eg: Using the MEDDPICC model) Exploring the account, finding deal champions, and understanding who really owns the problem to solve takes creativity, relationship building and strikes me as what you call Discovery Work. However, it should be part of a process that systematically unearths answers and effectively communicates that feedback internally to both guide potential feature development as well as providing input for positioning a value proposition and business case to drive buying behaviour. Could we argue here that Discovery Work of the nature described above should to some extent be systematized as part of a Sales Process to effectively generate and communicate insights internally to the folks that need to know? Is this an example of your "Soft Systematize" Phase?
You’re exactly right: in enterprise B2B sales, discovery is both art and process. The art is in building trust, finding real motivations, and spotting opportunities others might miss. The process is in making sure we don’t lose those insights — by using something like MEDDPICC to guide what we’re looking for, ensure completeness, and communicate clearly to the rest of the team.
That’s exactly what I mean by Soft Systematization. Early on, you give people lightweight scaffolding — just enough process to keep you from missing critical questions or failing to share what you learn — but you leave room for improvisation and human judgment. If you go straight to “Hard Systematization” (fully optimized scripts, rigid checklists, automated scoring), you risk stripping out the very creativity and context that make discovery valuable in the first place.
So yes — what you’re describing is a great example of how discovery work can be framed and supported without over-optimizing it.
Thanks for the comment and reading James. Really appreciate it.
Mr.Todd Gagne is now A STARTUP Guru - - his every article shares a “New MANTRA” that every startup or I will say,every entrepreneur must practice.I now understand some of Gravest mistakes I ever made were due to The Efficiency Paradox and Over-Optimizing (over-perfecting).It’s so kind of Mr.Todd to share his Deep insights free for which any consultant will charge us heavily.
I have a substack about AND mindset. Very related : https://open.substack.com/pub/swaang0/p/the-power-of-and-mindset
I really like the topic here, but it has prompted a question I'd love to get your thoughts on when it comes to Discovery Work vs Delivery Work. Consider Enterprise B2B Sales. The front end of the Sales effort involves Discovery work before any selling begins, as you need to answer questions like "Why is the customer buying? Why are they buying now? Why might they buy from us? before you scope the opportunity through systematic collection of information (eg: Using the MEDDPICC model) Exploring the account, finding deal champions, and understanding who really owns the problem to solve takes creativity, relationship building and strikes me as what you call Discovery Work. However, it should be part of a process that systematically unearths answers and effectively communicates that feedback internally to both guide potential feature development as well as providing input for positioning a value proposition and business case to drive buying behaviour. Could we argue here that Discovery Work of the nature described above should to some extent be systematized as part of a Sales Process to effectively generate and communicate insights internally to the folks that need to know? Is this an example of your "Soft Systematize" Phase?
You’re exactly right: in enterprise B2B sales, discovery is both art and process. The art is in building trust, finding real motivations, and spotting opportunities others might miss. The process is in making sure we don’t lose those insights — by using something like MEDDPICC to guide what we’re looking for, ensure completeness, and communicate clearly to the rest of the team.
That’s exactly what I mean by Soft Systematization. Early on, you give people lightweight scaffolding — just enough process to keep you from missing critical questions or failing to share what you learn — but you leave room for improvisation and human judgment. If you go straight to “Hard Systematization” (fully optimized scripts, rigid checklists, automated scoring), you risk stripping out the very creativity and context that make discovery valuable in the first place.
So yes — what you’re describing is a great example of how discovery work can be framed and supported without over-optimizing it.
Thanks for the comment and reading James. Really appreciate it.
Resolving the tensions and optimizing to efficiency is probbaly the least thing startups want to do.
"Efficiency isn't about doing things right. It's about knowing which things deserve to be done right." 100%
Well said!
Mr.Todd Gagne is now A STARTUP Guru - - his every article shares a “New MANTRA” that every startup or I will say,every entrepreneur must practice.I now understand some of Gravest mistakes I ever made were due to The Efficiency Paradox and Over-Optimizing (over-perfecting).It’s so kind of Mr.Todd to share his Deep insights free for which any consultant will charge us heavily.
If I need an agent, I am calling Sheo! Appreciate the support and glad the content is helpful.