File: 2026.10.23 - Kestrel Medical - 01 Business Requirements.md
Kestrel Medical: Business Requirements
Test case, Sample data. Kestrel Medical is a test case. Sharon was played by the case's stakeholder agent. Data named here is mapped to the Sample data in 03 - Working Files/data/, which must be checked against real data before go-live.
1. Document control
| Field | Detail |
|---|---|
| Version | 1.0 |
| Date | 23-Oct-26 |
| Status | Approved at the Stage 1 gate, 23-Oct-26 |
| Author | Gary, KPI Creator Stage 1 |
| Stakeholder | Sharon, sales leader (exact title to confirm) |
| Sign-off | Sharon confirmed the playback on 23-Oct-26, with three corrections (all made). Adam (acting subject matter expert, test mode) approved at the Stage 1 gate, 23-Oct-26 |
2. Problem Statement
Kestrel has lost three of its last five big tenders, each over five million dollars, and believes price is the reason but can't yet prove or disprove it. With gross margin at about 41 per cent against global's 43 per cent target for 2027, and thirty monthly reports that give different answers, the business needs one set of evidence before it asks global for more discount room.
The problem as stated
Sharon, in her words: lost three of the last five big tenders, each over five million dollars, "never happened to me in 22 years". Reps say Kestrel is being undercut 10 to 15 per cent. She wants a win-loss view and pricing against the competition, so she can take evidence to global and argue for more discount room. And she wants out of Excel: thirty monthly reports, and half of them say different things.
The problem as Gary understands it
- The ask and the target pull against each other. The ask is evidence for more discount. Global's target is more margin (about 41 to 43 per cent in 2027) and 4 per cent revenue growth, after a flat year
- The loss reasons are belief, not yet evidence. They come from reps and one procurement person. Sharon's own account of the three losses: one "was price" (Southern Metropolitan Health Network), one was "about the stretcher as much as anything" (Highlands Ambulance, a 15-year customer), and one went to a distributor that bundles several brands (Western Plains Health District, won by Allied Clinical Supply)
- The evidence exists but hasn't been used. Deb Harlow, the bid manager, keeps the tender file and the debrief letters
- Nobody agrees on the base numbers. Thirty monthly reports from ERP extracts disagree, and Sharon spends three days a month reconciling them
Gary's note: the question I'd put to Sharon is "What decision changes if this number moves?" Here, the answer is the discount case to global. If the debriefs say Kestrel lost on product fit or bundling, more discount won't win the next tender and will cost the margin target. That's my reading, not Sharon's words, and Sharon has not confirmed it.
↑ Back to top3. Objectives
| ID | Objective | Sub-objective |
|---|---|---|
| O1 | Lift gross margin to 43 per cent in 2027 (about 41 per cent now) | Know where margin is leaking, especially on big deals (O1.1) |
| O2 | Grow revenue 4 per cent in 2027 (flat last year) | Know which reps and product groups are growing and which are going backwards (O2.1) |
| O3 | Stop losing the big tenders (over five million dollars) | Know which tenders we lose, who wins them, on what price, and the real reasons from the debriefs (O3.1) |
| O4 | One agreed set of numbers instead of thirty monthly reports that disagree, automated and consistent |
Each objective helps solve the Problem Statement: margin and growth are global's tests (O1, O2), the tender losses are the trigger (O3), and one agreed set of numbers makes the evidence credible (O4).
↑ Back to top4. Audience and decisions
| Who | Decisions | How often | Where |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sales leader (Sharon) | Pricing on big deals within her authority; where reps focus; headcount asks to global; how Kestrel responds to tenders | Monthly (her expectation, "don't hold me to it") | A pack for global (main use); on screen in meetings with the reps. Not phone |
| Global group | Whether to give more discount room; headcount | Unknown | Pack, format unknown |
| Reps | Where to focus | In meetings with the sales leader | Screen |
| Others | Unknown: Sharon to check with the team | Unknown | Unknown |
5. Business Requirements with Data Mapping
All measures, data mappings and filters below are Draft: Kewpie to confirm. Targets and thresholds marked "Gary's proposal" were not said by Sharon.
Top 5
| Measure | Type | Objective | What do we want to know? | Why? | Action if outside threshold | Action owner | Target (SMART) | Thresholds |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gross margin per cent (K1) | Lagging | O1 | What gross margin we earn on sales, against global's 43 per cent | Global's headline target; any discount case has to square with it | Sales leader tightens pricing on big deals within her authority; anything beyond goes to global with the discount evidence | Sales leader | 43% for the 2027 financial year (January to December). Global's target. Observed Fact | Gary's proposal: Green 43% or more year to date; Amber 42% to under 43%; Red under 42% |
| Average discount off list price on big deals (K2) | Leading | O1, O1.1 | How much discount we give off list on big deals, and where it's growing | Shows margin leaking before year end; the evidence for or against more discount room | Sales leader reviews big-deal pricing within her authority and pulls back discounts that aren't winning business | Sales leader | Gary's proposal: at or below the 2026 big-deal average by the end of 2027. Working Hypothesis | Gary's proposal: Green at or below 2026 average; Amber up to 1 point above; Red more than 1 point above |
| Revenue growth on the year (K3) | Lagging | O2 | Whether revenue grows 4 per cent in 2027 after a flat year | Global's growth target; drives rep focus and headcount asks | Sales leader moves rep focus to growing product groups and customers; makes a headcount ask to global if the gap is capacity | Sales leader | 4% growth in 2027. Global's target. Observed Fact. Base (2026 actuals?) open | Gary's proposal: Green 4% or more; Amber 0% to under 4%; Red below 0% |
| Big tender win rate (K4) | Lagging | O3 | How many tenders over five million dollars we win | Three of the last five lost; decides how Kestrel responds to the next tenders | Bid manager reviews the debriefs and scoring of lost bids; sales leader decides how the response changes | Bid manager (response decided by the sales leader) | Open question, needed before Kewpie finishes Stage 2 (Adam, 23-Oct-26): Sharon asked that the target be left for the bid manager. Starting point: won 2 of the last 5 (Observed Fact) | Open, with the target |
| Monthly reports that match the agreed set of numbers (K5) | Leading | O4 | Whether the monthly reports agree with one agreed set of numbers | Three days a month reconciling; every other measure depends on agreed numbers | Finance report owner fixes or retires any report that doesn't match | Finance report owner | Open question, needed before Kewpie finishes Stage 2 (Adam, 23-Oct-26): Sharon wants one agreed set of numbers with Tom checking the reports against it, and has not agreed a target | Open, with the target |
SME sign-off (all rows): Sharon (stakeholder) confirmed the playback with corrections, 23-Oct-26. Adam (acting subject matter expert, test mode) approved at the Stage 1 gate, 23-Oct-26.
Draft measures for the Top 5 (Draft: Kewpie to confirm)
| Measure | How measured | Data source and fields | Filters and conditions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gross margin per cent (K1) | (Net sales minus cost of sales) divided by net sales. (SUM(net_value_aud) - SUM(cost_of_sales)) / SUM(net_value_aud) | SAP sales orders: sales_order_lines.net_value_aud, sales_order_lines.actual_ship_date. Cost of sales: no field in the Sample data; finance to name the SAP source | Shipped lines only; financial year January to December; must reconcile to finance's 41 per cent before use |
| Average discount off list price on big deals (K2) | 1 minus net value over list value, value-weighted. 1 - SUM(net_value_aud) / SUM(list_price * qty) | SAP sales orders: sales_order_lines.list_price, .qty, .net_value_aud, .discount_pct (cross-check), .order_id, .contract_id, .material_group | Big deal = order total at or above a size Sharon sets (open); placeholder: orders linked to a contract. Exclude lines with no list price. Period by order date |
| Revenue growth on the year (K3) | Net sales year to date over the same period last year, minus 1. SUM(net_value_aud, YTD 2027) / SUM(net_value_aud, same period 2026) - 1 | SAP sales orders: sales_order_lines.net_value_aud, .actual_ship_date, .order_type | Year to date vs year to date; ship date until finance confirms its revenue rule; Kewpie to check order types for credits and returns |
| Big tender win rate (K4) | Tenders won over tenders decided. COUNT(won) / COUNT(won or lost), estimated value $5m or more | Bid manager's tender spreadsheet: tender_register.outcome, .estimated_value, .close_date, .tender_reference. Chosen over the CRM, which Sharon doesn't trust for win-loss | $5m or more (values stored as text like "$2.21m"); dates as dd/mm/yyyy text; exclude undecided; show the count (for example 2 of 5) next to the rate, as numbers are small |
| Monthly reports that match the agreed set of numbers (K5) | Reports using the agreed sales definition and customer grouping, over all reports | Monthly reports index: monthly_reports_index.workbook, .owner, .sales_definition, .customer_grouping, .last_refreshed | Agreed definition set by finance (open); reports marked "n/a" reviewed one by one |
Sub-KPIs (Must Have, explain a Top 5 measure)
| Sub-KPI | Under | Objective | What it explains | How measured (Draft: Kewpie to confirm) | Data | Owner |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gross margin by product group (K1.1) | Gross margin per cent (K1) | O1.1 | Where the margin leaks | Gross margin split by product group | sales_order_lines.material_group, .net_value_aud, cost of sales (open) | Sales leader |
| Revenue growth by product group (K3.1) | Revenue growth on the year (K3) | O2.1 | Which product groups grow or go backwards | Revenue growth by material_group | sales_order_lines.material_group, .net_value_aud | Sales leader |
| Revenue growth by rep (K3.2) | Revenue growth on the year (K3) | O2.1 | Which reps grow or go backwards | Revenue growth by rep_id; customers grouped by parent where known | sales_order_lines.rep_id, .net_value_aud, customers.parent_id | Sales leader |
| Our price against the winning price on lost tenders (K4.1) | Big tender win rate (K4) | O3.1 | "On what price" we lost: proves or disproves the price story | our_submitted_price / winning_price - 1, lost tenders. Gary's proposed thresholds: Green within 2%; Amber 2% to 5% above; Red more than 5% above | tender_register.our_submitted_price, .winning_price, .outcome | Bid manager |
| Why we lost, from the debriefs (K4.2) | Big tender win rate (K4) | O3.1 | Price, product fit, service or something else | For each lost tender, the scoring area with the biggest gap to the preferred supplier; losses counted by area | tender_register.scoring_table, .debrief_notes, .debrief_received | Bid manager |
| Who is winning the tenders we lose (K4.3) | Big tender win rate (K4) | O3.1 | One competitor's product, or bundled distributor bids | Count and value of lost tenders by winning supplier | tender_register.winning_supplier, .estimated_value | Bid manager |
6. Backlog (Nice to Have)
| Item | Reason parked |
|---|---|
| CRM opportunity win rate | Sharon doesn't trust the CRM for win-loss: only some reps use it properly |
| Reps' reported competitor price cuts (10 to 15 per cent) | Anecdote, not evidence. Replaced by our price against the winning price on lost tenders (K4.1) |
| Service and field measures (work orders, contracts, parts) | The field service system was named, but no objective or action was raised for it |
7. Data inventory (as named in the interview)
| Source | Holds | Mapped Sample data | Grain | History | Refresh | Quality notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SAP ERP | Sales orders, customers | sales_order_lines, sales_order_change_log, customers | Order line | Unknown | Unknown | Monthly reports come from ERP extracts. Cost of sales field not yet named |
| Tender spreadsheet (bid manager) | Bids, outcomes, debriefs | tender_register | Tender | Unknown | Manual | Debrief letters held by Deb Harlow. Values and dates stored as text |
| CRM | Opportunities | crm_opportunities | Opportunity | Unknown | Unknown | Not trusted for win-loss. Not used in the Top 5 |
| Monthly Excel reports | Thirty reports | monthly_reports_index | Report | Monthly | Monthly | Half disagree. Owned by Tom Nguyen (finance). Cause unknown |
| Field service system | Technician work | work_orders, asset_register, site_customer_map, service_contracts | Work order, asset | Unknown | Unknown | No measure in this release |
Sharon said she isn't the one to ask about the data itself. Tom Nguyen (finance) and Deb Harlow (bid manager) hold the detail.
↑ Back to top8. Constraints and chart preferences
- Must speak to how Kestrel's market actually works, not global's standard view
- Reports automated and consistent
- A pack for global first, then a screen in meetings with the reps. Not designed for phone
- Privacy and customer confidentiality: unknown, Sharon to check
- Chart likes and dislikes: none given. Sharon will react to a draft
9. Assumptions
| Assumption | Evidence label |
|---|---|
| The financial year is January to December, set by global; 2027 is both calendar and financial year | Observed Fact |
| Kestrel won 2 of its last 5 big tenders | Observed Fact |
| Revenue counts on ship date in the draft measures, until finance confirms its rule | Working Hypothesis |
| The tender file and debrief letters are a better source of loss reasons than the CRM or rep reports | Strong Inference |
| The Sample data reflects the shape of the real systems | Working Hypothesis |
10. Open questions
| Question | For |
|---|---|
| What is a realistic win-rate target for tenders over five million dollars in 2027? Target for Big tender win rate (K4): needed before Kewpie finishes Stage 2 | Bid manager (Deb Harlow) |
| Is the 4 per cent revenue growth for 2027 measured against 2026 actuals? | Sales leader, with finance |
| Where does cost of sales come from for gross margin, and how does finance get to 41 per cent? | Finance report owner (Tom Nguyen) |
| Why do the thirty monthly reports disagree (how sales is counted, how customers are grouped, or both), and which is right? | Finance report owner (Tom Nguyen) |
| Outside tenders, what order size counts as a big deal? | Sales leader (Sharon) |
| When does evidence next go to global, and in what pack format? | Sales leader (Sharon) |
| What privacy or customer confidentiality rules apply, for example showing competitor prices or customer names in a pack for global? | Sales leader (Sharon) |
| Who else will open the dashboard, and how often? | Sales leader (Sharon) |
| What target should the monthly reports match against, and how will Tom check them in practice? Target for Monthly reports that match the agreed set of numbers (K5): needed before Kewpie finishes Stage 2 | Finance report owner, with the sales leader |
| How far back does each system go, and how often does each refresh? | Finance report owner and bid manager |
11. Change log
| Version | Date | Change | Reason | Approved by |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.0 | 23-Oct-26 | First version. Playback corrections made: (1) Before "discount and tender decisions are being made blind", After "believes price is the reason but can't yet prove or disprove it"; (2) Before "my proposed target is better than half in 2027", After "target left for the bid manager"; (3) Before "Target all of them", After "one agreed set of numbers, with Tom checking the reports against it; target open" | Stage 1 interview and playback | Adam, 23-Oct-26 |
| 1.0 | 23-Oct-26 | Stage 1 approved. Gary's proposed thresholds, big-deal discount target, owners and due dates accepted. Targets for Big tender win rate (K4) and Monthly reports that match the agreed set of numbers (K5) logged as open questions, needed before Kewpie finishes Stage 2 | Sharon asked that both targets be set later by the bid manager and the finance report owner | Adam, 23-Oct-26 |
File: 2026.10.23 - Kestrel Medical - 01 Project Plan.md
Kestrel Medical: Project Plan
Test case, Sample data. Built from Business Requirements v1.0 (23-Oct-26). Dates and effort are Gary's proposals.
1. Goal and scope
- Goal: a first trusted dashboard Sharon can take to global as evidence and use in rep meetings, covering gross margin, revenue growth, big tender wins and one agreed set of numbers
- In scope: the Top 5 measures and their six sub-KPIs in Business Requirements v1.0
- Out of scope this time: CRM win rate, reps' reported competitor price cuts, service and field measures
2. Phases and sprints
| Phase | Dates (proposed) | Deliverables | Owner (role) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Discover | 23-Oct-26 to 30-Oct-26 | Business Requirements v1.0, open questions answered by the bid manager and finance | Gary; sales leader |
| 2. Build KPIs | 2-Nov-26 to 27-Nov-26 (2 sprints) | Calculation Pack: measures confirmed on the data, baselines, pace needed, challenge notes | Kewpie; finance report owner |
| 3. Visualise | 30-Nov-26 to 11-Dec-26 (1 sprint) | Story, Standard dashboard (pack-first layout), Experimental options | Viktor |
| 4. Harden | 14-Dec-26 to 22-Jan-27 (1 sprint, plus the holiday break) | Standards and validation, stakeholder review, fixes | Jennifer |
| 5. Embed | 25-Jan-27 to 5-Feb-27 | Handover, owner walk-through, monthly review rhythm agreed | Adam; sales leader |
The data adds a sprint to Build KPIs: cost of sales isn't named yet, the reports disagree, and the tender file stores values as text.
↑ Back to top3. MoSCoW
| Priority | Items |
|---|---|
| Must | Gross margin per cent; Average discount off list price on big deals; Revenue growth on the year; Big tender win rate; Monthly reports that match the agreed set of numbers |
| Should | Gross margin by product group; Revenue growth by product group; Revenue growth by rep; Our price against the winning price on lost tenders; Why we lost, from the debriefs; Who is winning the tenders we lose |
| Could | Experimental dashboard options |
| Won't (this time) | CRM win rate; reps' reported competitor price cuts; service and field measures |
4. Effort estimate
| Phase | Person-days | Assumptions |
|---|---|---|
| Discover | 3 | Bid manager and finance answer the open questions within a week |
| Build KPIs | 10 | Includes agreeing the sales definition with finance and parsing the tender file |
| Visualise | 5 | One Standard version, up to two Experimental |
| Harden | 4 | One round of stakeholder fixes |
| Embed | 2 | One walk-through session |
| Total | 24 |
5. RAID log
| ID | Type | Description | Impact | Owner (role) | Action | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1 | Risk | Cost of sales isn't named, so gross margin per cent can't be calculated | H | Finance report owner | Name the SAP field and reconcile to 41 per cent | Open |
| R2 | Risk | The evidence may show losses weren't mainly price, which changes the discount case to global | H | Sales leader | Agree up front that the dashboard shows the evidence either way | Open |
| R3 | Risk | Only a handful of big tenders a year, so the win rate swings on one result | M | Bid manager | Show counts next to rates; use a rolling window | Open |
| I1 | Issue | Thirty monthly reports disagree; cause unknown | H | Finance report owner | Agree one sales definition and customer grouping | Open |
| I2 | Issue | CRM not trusted for win-loss | M | Sales leader | Use the tender file instead | Closed (designed out) |
| A1 | Assumption | Revenue counts on ship date until finance confirms | M | Finance report owner | Confirm the rule | Open |
| A2 | Assumption | Sample data reflects the real systems' shape | M | Kewpie | Check against real extracts before go-live | Open |
| D1 | Dependency | Bid manager supplies the win-rate target and debrief letters | H | Bid manager | Answer before Build KPIs ends | Open |
| D2 | Dependency | Global's pack format and the next date evidence goes to global | M | Sales leader | Confirm before Visualise | Open |
| D3 | Dependency | Privacy and customer confidentiality rules for competitor prices and customer names | M | Sales leader | Confirm before Visualise | Open |
6. Milestones and approval gates
| Milestone | Gate | Proposed date |
|---|---|---|
| Business Requirements v1.0 approved | Stage 1 gate (Adam) | 30-Oct-26 |
| Calculation Pack approved | Stage 2 gate (Adam) | 27-Nov-26 |
| Standard dashboard chosen | Stage 3 gate (Adam) | 11-Dec-26 |
| Finished first draft validated | Stage 4 gate (Adam) | 22-Jan-27 |
| Stakeholder brief coverage check | Ovy, before Stage 5 | 23-Jan-27 |
| Walk-through, sign-off and go-live date set | Stage 5 (Sharon and Adam) | 5-Feb-27 |
7. Review rhythm after go-live
- Monthly: sales leader reviews the Top 5, in line with today's monthly reports (Sharon's expectation, to confirm)
- After each big tender decision: bid manager updates the outcome, winning price and debrief
- Before each global review: pack produced from the dashboard (date and format open)
- Quarterly: finance report owner checks the monthly reports against the agreed set of numbers
File: 2026.10.23 - Kestrel Medical - 01 Interview Notes.md
Kestrel Medical: Interview Notes (Stage 1)
Test case. Gary's working notes from the interview with Sharon (stakeholder agent), 23-Oct-26. The word-for-word record is the Meeting Script.
Questions used
| # | Area | Asked | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Question 1 + probe | Why / What | Problem and why now; probe on "undercut" | ✅ |
| Question 2 | What | Outcomes and numbers | ✅ (no win-rate number) |
| Question 3 | Who | Audience, decisions, format | ✅ partly |
| Question 4 | Why / Action | What to know, action, owner per outcome | ✅ |
| Question 5 | When | Year basis, growth base, next global date | ✅ partly |
| Question 6 | Where | Data, history, trust, why reports disagree | ✅ partly |
| Question 7 | Constraints | Privacy, global pack, charts | ⚠️ mostly open |
Key facts (Sharon's words)
- Lost three of the last five big tenders, each over five million dollars
- Gross margin about 41 per cent; global wants 43 per cent in 2027, plus 4 per cent revenue growth. Revenue flat last year
- Financial year January to December, set by global
- Reps say Kestrel is undercut 10 to 15 per cent "from what they're seeing"
- Losses: Southern Metropolitan Health Network, ED stretchers, 2024 ("I was told it was price"); Highlands Ambulance, powered stretcher renewal, 2025 ("about the stretcher as much as anything"); Western Plains Health District, acute care beds, 2025 (lost to Allied Clinical Supply, a distributor that bundles brands)
- Deb Harlow, bid manager: tender file and debrief letters. Tom Nguyen, finance: owns the Excel reports and the margin numbers
- Systems: SAP ERP, field service system, CRM (not trusted for win-loss), Excel, tender spreadsheet. Monthly reports from ERP extracts
- Three days a month reconciling thirty reports
- Pack for global first, screen in rep meetings second, not phone. Monthly
- Must speak to how Kestrel's market works, not global's standard view; automated and consistent
Corrections at playback
- Before: "discount and tender decisions are being made blind". After: Sharon believes it's price and wants the evidence to prove or disprove it
- Before: "My proposed target is better than half in 2027, for Deb to confirm". After: no target; left for Deb Harlow
- Before: "Target all of them" (monthly reports). After: one agreed set of numbers, with Tom checking the reports against it; target open
Gary's reading
- The real problem is a discount decision being made on belief. The debriefs may show product fit or bundling, not price. If so, more discount costs margin and still loses
- The Top 5 balances the margin side (gross margin, big-deal discount) against the win side (tender win rate), so the dashboard shows the trade-off rather than one side of it
File: 2026.10.23 - Kestrel Medical - 01 Meeting Script.md
Gary and Sharon
Kestrel Medical requirements meeting · 23-Oct-26
Gary's meeting summary
Main points and action items
Main points
- The trigger: Kestrel lost three of its last five big tenders, each over five million dollars. A first in Sharon's 22 years
- The ask: a win-loss view and pricing against the competition, as evidence to argue to global for more discount room. And out of Excel: thirty monthly reports, half say different things
- The tension: global wants 43 per cent gross margin in 2027 (about 41 now) and 4 per cent revenue growth. More discount pulls against the margin target
- Price is a belief, not yet evidence: Sharon's corrected words are that she believes it's price, and wants the evidence "to prove or disprove it". One loss was "about the stretcher as much as anything", and one went to a distributor that bundles brands
- Evidence holders: Deb Harlow (bid manager) keeps the tender file and debrief letters; Tom Nguyen (finance) owns the Excel reports and the margin numbers
- Audience: Sharon makes the decisions. Main use is a pack for global, plus screen in rep meetings, monthly. Not phone
- Data: SAP ERP, a field service system, a CRM (not trusted for win-loss), Excel, and the bid manager's tender spreadsheet. Detail sits with Tom and Deb
- Top 5 proposed: Gross margin per cent; Average discount off list price on big deals; Revenue growth on the year; Big tender win rate; Monthly reports that match the agreed set of numbers
- Confirmed by Sharon: the margin, growth and tender goals, the decisions, monthly use and the pack-first format. Not confirmed: the win-rate target (left for Deb) and the monthly reports target (left open). Thresholds and owners are Gary's proposals
Action items
| # | Action | Owner | Due |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Write the Business Requirements, the Business Requirements with Data Mapping (draft measures) and the Project Plan | Gary | 23-Oct-26 (done) |
| 2 | Draft the open questions for Deb Harlow and Tom Nguyen, for Adam to review and send | Gary drafts; Adam sends | 26-Oct-26 |
| 3 | Set a realistic win-rate target for tenders over five million dollars, and share the debrief letters | Bid manager (Deb Harlow) | 30-Oct-26 (Gary's proposal) |
| 4 | Name the cost of sales source, the revenue rule and why the reports disagree | Finance report owner (Tom Nguyen) | 30-Oct-26 (Gary's proposal) |
| 5 | Check privacy rules, global's pack format, the next global date and who else will use it | Sales leader (Sharon) | 30-Oct-26 (Gary's proposal) |
| 6 | Sign off Gary's proposed owners, thresholds and targets | Adam (acting subject matter expert) | At the Stage 1 gate |
| 7 | Test every draft measure on the data, and set baselines and pace needed | Kewpie | After Stage 1 sign-off |
Open questions
- What's a realistic win-rate target for tenders over five million dollars in 2027?
- Is the 4 per cent growth measured against 2026 actuals?
- Where does cost of sales come from, and how does finance get to 41 per cent?
- Why do the thirty monthly reports disagree, and which one is right?
- Outside tenders, what size counts as a big deal?
- When does evidence next go to global, and in what format?
- What privacy or customer confidentiality rules apply?
- Who else will open the dashboard, and how often?
- What should the monthly reports be checked against, and how will Tom do it in practice?
About this meeting
Test case. Kestrel Medical is a test case. Sharon was played by the case's stakeholder agent, answering by message. Every question and answer below is word for word from those messages.
| Field | Detail |
|---|---|
| Date | 23-Oct-26 |
| Length | 10 message exchanges (test mode, by message) |
| Interviewer | Gary, KPI Creator Stage 1 |
| Stakeholder | Sharon, sales leader (title to confirm; played by the stakeholder agent) |
| Observer | Adam (acting subject matter expert for sign-off) |
| Questions used | 7 of 7, plus 1 probe, the playback and the close |
| Source record | 2026.10.23 - Kestrel Medical - 01 Interview Notes.md |
Hi Sharon, thanks for making the time. I'm Gary, and I'll be asking you up to seven questions so we build the right dashboard, not just a pretty one. To start: what's the business problem you're trying to solve, and why does it matter now?
Hi Gary, good to meet you. Honestly, we've lost three of the last five big tenders. That has never happened to me in 22 years. Each one was over five million dollars.
Global is on my back about margin. We're at about 41 per cent gross and they want 43 in 2027. At the same time my reps keep telling me we're being undercut on price everywhere, 10 and 15 per cent off, from what they're seeing.
What I need is a proper win-loss view, and something that shows our pricing against the competition. Then I can go to global with evidence and argue for more discount room. And please, get me out of Excel. I've got thirty monthly reports and half of them say different things.
Why now? Because the tender cycle is running and the margin target is 2027. If we don't understand why we're losing, we'll keep discounting blind.
she wants more discount room, and global wants more margin. Those pull against each other. And "undercut" is the reps' word, "from what they're seeing". Test it before it goes in the Problem Statement.
Thanks Sharon, that's clear. I want to come back to one word: "undercut". Your reps say you're being undercut by 10 to 15 per cent. For the three big tenders you lost, what did the buyer actually tell you about why you lost? Was it price, or something else?
Fair question, Gary. Here's what I've been told, tender by tender.
Southern Metropolitan Health Network, ED stretchers, 2024: lost. I was told it was price.
Highlands Ambulance, powered stretcher renewal, 2025: lost. That one hurt, we'd had them fifteen years. They went with the competitor's new stretcher. I rang the director and he was very polite. He said it was a close call.
Western Plains Health District, acute care beds, 2025: lost to a distributor bid. Allied Clinical Supply won it. They bundle several brands.
So it's mostly price in my mind, but I'll be honest, the Highlands one was about the stretcher as much as anything. For the formal detail you'd want Deb Harlow, our bid manager. She keeps the tender file and has the debrief letters.
one of three is clearly price, by hearsay. One is product, one is bundling. The evidence sits in Deb's debrief letters, not in the reps' stories. That's where the real problem is.
That's useful, and I'll note Deb Harlow and the debrief letters. Now the outcomes. You mentioned two things that pull in opposite directions: global wants gross margin up from about 41 to 43 per cent in 2027, and you want more discount room to win tenders. If this goes well, what are the 2 or 3 outcomes the business needs, and is there a number you'd point to for each one (for example, how many tenders you'd expect to win)?
Good question, and I know the two pull against each other. Global's number is simple. They want 43 per cent gross margin in 2027, and 4 per cent revenue growth on top of that.
For me, success looks like two things. First, we stop losing tenders. Second, I stop spending three days a month reconciling spreadsheets.
On a tender count, I don't have a number I'd stand behind. I'd rather not guess in front of you. Deb Harlow would know what a realistic win rate looks like on the big ones, and Tom Nguyen in finance would have the margin side.
four objectives. Margin 43 per cent and growth 4 per cent are firm. No win-rate number: log it for Deb, don't invent one.
Got it, and thanks for not guessing. I'll log the win-rate target for Deb and the margin detail for Tom. Next: who will actually open this dashboard, what decisions will they make with it, and how often? And where will they look at it: a screen in a meeting, a phone, or a pack for global?
The main decisions are mine. I make the pricing calls on big deals within my authority. I decide where the reps focus. I make the headcount asks to global. And I decide how we respond to tenders.
Beyond that, I'd have to check with the team on who else would open it and how often. Right now the monthly reports come round every month, so I'd guess the dashboard would follow that rhythm, but don't hold me to it.
As for where I'd look at it, the main use is evidence I take to global. So a pack for global matters most to me. I'd also want to be able to pull it up in a meeting with the reps. I wouldn't be looking at it on my phone.
Let's take your outcomes one at a time: gross margin to 43 per cent, revenue growth of 4 per cent, winning the big tenders, and one trusted set of numbers instead of thirty spreadsheets. For each one, what do you want to know, and what would you actually do if it went off track? Who would act on it?
Right, let me go through them one at a time.
Gross margin to 43 per cent. I want to know where the margin is leaking, especially on the big deals. If it's off track, I'd tighten pricing on big deals, but only within my authority. Anything beyond that goes to global, and that's exactly why I want the discount evidence. Tom Nguyen would need to confirm the margin numbers.
Revenue growth of 4 per cent. I want to know which reps and which product groups are growing and which are going backwards. If it's off track, I'd move where the reps focus, and if we need more people, I'd make the headcount ask to global. Revenue was flat last year, so this one worries me.
Winning the big tenders. I want to know which ones we're losing, who's winning them, and on what price. If it goes off track, I'd change how we respond to the next tenders. Deb Harlow runs the bids, so she'd act on the tender side and I'd make the call on response.
One trusted set of numbers. I want one set of figures that everyone agrees on, so I stop reconciling three days a month. Honestly, I don't know which of the thirty reports is the right one. If the numbers are off, Tom Nguyen is the one to fix them, because he owns the Excel reports. I'd have to check with him on how that would work in practice.
every objective now has a what, an action and an owner. That's the Must Have test passed for the four headline measures. "Where the margin is leaking, especially on the big deals" gives me a leading measure: discount on big deals.
Thanks, that gives me an action and an owner for each one. Now the dates. Is the 43 per cent margin for the 2027 calendar year or a financial year, and is the 4 per cent revenue growth over 2026 on the same timeline? And when do you next have to take evidence to global?
Our financial year runs January to December, because that's set by the global group. So 2027 is both the calendar year and the financial year. The 43 per cent margin is for 2027.
On the 4 per cent growth, global's target is for 2027. I'd have to check with the team whether it's measured against 2026 actuals, so don't take my word on the base.
As for when I next take evidence to global, I don't know the date off the top of my head. I'd have to check with the team.
No problem, I'll log both as open questions. Now the data. What data do you have today (sales orders, tenders, CRM, service and so on), how far back does it go, and what don't you trust about it? When your thirty reports say different things, do you know why: is it that they count "sales" differently, or group customers differently?
Honestly, Gary, I'm not the one to ask about the data itself. I'd have to check with the team on how far back each system goes and what's in it.
What I can tell you is the main places things live. We run SAP for the ERP. There's a field service system for the technicians. There's a CRM that the sales team uses, sort of. And there's a lot of Excel. Deb Harlow's tender spreadsheet is where the bids are tracked, and the monthly reports come from our ERP extracts.
On why the thirty reports disagree, I don't know for certain. I'd guess it's a mix of things, but I'd rather Tom Nguyen tell you which. Tom owns the Excel reports, so he'd know whether it's how sales is counted or how customers are grouped.
I'd also say the CRM isn't something I'd trust for win-loss. Only some of the reps use it properly.
the tender measures come from Deb's spreadsheet, not the CRM. No source named yet for cost of sales, so margin depends on Tom.
That's fine, I'll take the data detail to Tom and Deb, and I'll keep the CRM out of win-loss. Last question: is there anything I must or mustn't do? For example privacy or customer confidentiality, what global expects in a pack, tools, or charts you like or can't stand from past reports.
Thanks, Gary. On privacy and customer confidentiality, I'd have to check with the team. I don't want to guess on that one.
On what global expects in a pack, I don't know their format. I'd have to check with the team.
What I can say is that global's dashboards don't understand our market. So whatever we build has to speak to how our business actually works, not just to their standard view. I also want the reports automated and consistent. That's what I'm after.
As for charts I like or can't stand, I'd rather not say from memory. Send me a draft and I'll tell you straight away.
Here's what I've heard. Please tell me if it's right.
In one line: Kestrel has lost three of its last five big tenders and can't yet show with evidence whether price or something else lost them. With gross margin at about 41 per cent against global's 43 per cent target for 2027, and thirty monthly reports that disagree, discount and tender decisions are being made blind.
You want four outcomes in 2027: gross margin up to 43 per cent, revenue growth of 4 per cent, winning more of the big tenders (over $5 million), and one trusted set of numbers instead of thirty spreadsheets. You make the calls: pricing on big deals within your authority, where reps focus, headcount asks and how you respond to tenders. The main use is a pack for global, plus pulling it up in meetings with the reps, probably monthly. Not on a phone.
The five measures I propose for page one (my proposals, built from your words):
- Gross margin per cent. Target 43 per cent for 2027. If off track, you tighten pricing on big deals within your authority, and take anything bigger to global.
- Average discount off list price on big deals. Shows where margin leaks. Same action and owner as above.
- Revenue growth on the year. Target 4 per cent for 2027. If off track, you move rep focus or make a headcount ask. Underneath: growth by product group and by rep.
- Big tender win rate (tenders over $5 million). You won two of the last five. My proposed target is better than half in 2027, for Deb to confirm. Underneath: our price against the winning price, the reasons in the debrief letters, and who's winning. Deb acts on the bid, you decide the response.
- Monthly reports on one agreed definition of sales and customers. Target all of them. Tom fixes any that don't match.
Parked as nice to haves: CRM win rate (you don't trust it for win-loss) and reps' reports of competitor price cuts (the tender file and debriefs should replace that with evidence).
Still open: the win-rate target, the base for 4 per cent growth, where cost of sales comes from for margin, what counts as a "big deal" outside tenders, when you next go to global, privacy rules, and global's pack format.
Is this right?
Mostly right, Gary. A few corrections.
I'd not say we're making decisions blind. I believe it's price, and the reps and one procurement person have said so. What I want is the evidence to prove or disprove it.
On the measures: the margin, growth and tender goals are right. I haven't set a win-rate target, so please leave that for Deb. And I haven't agreed to "target all of them" on the monthly reports. What I want is one agreed set of numbers, with Tom checking the reports against it.
The rest matches what I said. I make the pricing and rep calls, I'd look at it monthly, and it's a pack for global plus meetings with the reps, not a phone screen.
fair on all three. I'd put words in her mouth with "blind" and proposed two targets she hadn't set. Fix them and show the Before and After.
Thanks Sharon, all three corrections taken. Before and after:
- Problem: "decisions are being made blind" becomes "you believe it's price, and you need the evidence to prove or disprove it".
- Win rate: no target from me. It stays open for Deb Harlow to set.
- Monthly reports: "target all of them" becomes "one agreed set of numbers, with Tom checking the reports against it". The target is open for Tom and you to agree.
Next steps: I'll write up the Business Requirements and a project plan, and send you the open questions for Deb and Tom. Then our calculations lead tests every measure on the data, and you'll see a draft dashboard to react to, as you asked. Thanks for your time.
Thanks, Gary. That all sounds right. Send the open questions to Deb and Tom, and I'll look at the draft when it's ready.
Checklist at close
| Area | Status | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Who | ✅ partly | Sharon's decisions, monthly, pack first. Other users open |
| What | ✅ | Problem and four objectives confirmed |
| Where | ⚠️ | Systems named. History, refresh, cost of sales and report definitions open |
| When | ⚠️ | Margin and growth dated to 2027. Growth base, win-rate target and next global date open |
| Why | ✅ | Why now, and an action and owner for each objective |
Change log
| Version | Date | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 1.0 | 23-Oct-26 | First version, written after the playback and close |