---
name: account-plan
source: https://app.decimal.ai/s/account-plan@1/SKILL.md
source_sha256: 672f28c94251
---

# Account Plan

## What this does

This skill turns what you know about an **existing customer** into a **strategic account plan** —
an artifact built to answer "how do we grow and defend this account, and what do we do next" — not
a company summary that answers "who is this customer."

The bare-model default, when asked to "build an account plan," is a **profile**: a paragraph on who
the company is and what they do, a flat list of contacts, some prose about "upsell opportunities,"
and a vague "keep building the relationship." That reads fine and plans nothing. This skill forces
the five moves that make a plan actionable:

1. **Relationship / org map** — the key people, each tagged with their *stance and power*, plus the
   **coverage gaps** where you have no one.
2. **Whitespace by product line** — for each of your product lines, what the account **already
   owns** vs. what is **open**, and in which team/unit.
3. **Expansion thesis** — one reasoned bet on where the next revenue comes from and *why*.
4. **Top risks** — the specific threats to renewing and growing this account.
5. **Next three plays, each with a named owner** — the immediate actions, prioritized to three.

A profile describes; a plan commits. The lift is the difference.

## When to use / when NOT to

**Use when:**
- You have an **existing customer** (or a near-closed one) and need a plan to **grow, expand, or
  defend** it — a land-and-expand, renewal-defense, or strategic-account artifact.
- You're prepping an **account review** or setting **next-quarter strategy** for a named account.

**Do NOT use when:**
- You're structuring the notes from a **single discovery call** into a deal qualification — that is
  `discovery-meddic-capture`.
- You're scoring an **inbound lead** against an ideal-customer profile — that is
  `lead-qualification`.
- You're writing a **quarterly-business-review recap** of what happened — that is `qbr-summary`.
- You just want a **company background brief** — that is a research profile, which is exactly what
  this skill is *not*.

## The five sections (emit all five, in this order)

### 1. Relationship / org map
List the key people, and for each give **role + stance + power**, not just a name and title. Stance
is one of: **economic buyer** (holds budget), **champion** (actively sells for you internally),
**coach** (friendly but no pull), **detractor/blocker** (leans against you), or **neutral**. Then
state the **coverage gaps** explicitly: roles, teams, or business units where you have **no
relationship** — especially if the whole account rests on **one** person (single-threaded). A flat
contact list with no stance and no gap is the failure this section prevents.

### 2. Whitespace by product line
Lay out expansion room **per product line / module**, not as prose. For each product line, mark what
the account **already owns** vs. what is **open (whitespace)**, and where possible *which team or
unit* the whitespace sits in. The point is a grid you can read: "they own A in Sales, B is open in
Sales and open across all of Ops." Generic "there's room to upsell" is not whitespace.

### 3. Expansion thesis
State **one** clear, reasoned bet: where the next expansion revenue comes from and **why**, tied to
the account's own business drivers (a mandate, a pain, a growing team). One sentence of claim plus
its reasoning. A **grab-bag** of every possible opportunity is not a thesis — pick the bet.

### 4. Top risks
Name the **2–4 specific threats** to renewing and growing this account: a single-threaded champion,
a champion who left, weak adoption/usage, a competitor in the door, a budget freeze, an unhappy
executive. Each risk should be something you could *act on*. Generic platitudes ("the market is
competitive") are not account risks.

### 5. Next three plays — each with a named owner
Exactly **three** immediate actions, prioritized. Each play names an **owner** (a specific person or
role who will run it) and connects to the thesis or to closing a risk. Not five, not "various next
steps," and never an unowned action. Three owned plays beat a ten-item wish list.

## Core rules

1. **Plan, not profile.** The output is a plan of action, not a description of the company. If a
   section could appear unchanged in a research brief, it doesn't belong here.
2. **Stance over roster.** Every contact carries a stance and power tag; never a flat name list.
3. **Name the gaps.** State the relationship coverage gaps and flag single-threaded accounts — a gap
   you can see is a gap you can close.
4. **Whitespace is a grid, by product line.** Owned vs. open, per product line and unit — not prose
   about "upsell potential."
5. **One thesis, not a menu.** Commit to a single expansion bet with its reasoning.
6. **Risks must be specific and actionable.** Tie each to this account; drop generic market lines.
7. **Exactly three owned plays.** Prioritize to three, each with a named owner.
8. **Never fabricate.** Use only facts you were given. If a contact, a number, or a competitor isn't
   in the context, don't invent it — record it as an **open question / gap** instead. A made-up
   economic buyer is worse than a flagged unknown.

## Worked example

Context you were given: *"Two-year customer, mid-market logistics. They bought our Routing module for
their dispatch team (~$120k/yr). Our day-to-day contact, a Director of Operations, adores the
product and renewed early. We also offer Analytics and a Driver-App add-on, but they run with neither today. Their VP of Ops (the
Director's boss) controls budget; we've never met her. Company just announced they're expanding into
a second region next year. A competitor's analytics tool is used by their finance team."*

BAD (profile — the bare default):
> This is a mid-market logistics company and a strong two-year customer. The Director of Operations
> is a happy user who renewed early. There's a good opportunity to upsell them our other modules,
> especially given their growth. Next steps: keep nurturing the relationship and explore expansion.

Why it's bad: flat contact mention, no stance/power, no coverage gap (never met the budget owner!),
"upsell our other modules" instead of a product-line whitespace grid, no single thesis, no specific
risk (the competitor and single-threading are ignored), and unowned vague next steps.

GOOD:
> **Relationship / org map**
> - Director of Operations — *champion*, renewed early, no budget authority.
> - VP of Ops — *economic buyer*, controls budget. **Coverage gap: never met.**
> - **Account is single-threaded** on the Director; if she leaves, we have no one.
>
> **Whitespace by product line**
> - Routing — *owned* (dispatch team, ~$120k/yr).
> - Analytics — *open*; a competitor is already in the finance team here.
> - Driver-App — *open*; no team using it yet.
>
> **Expansion thesis**
> Their announced second-region expansion is the wedge: more regions = more drivers and more routes,
> which is the direct value case for the Driver-App module. Bet the next expansion on Driver-App
> riding the region launch, before their planning locks.
>
> **Top risks**
> 1. Single-threaded on the Director — no relationship with the VP who holds budget.
> 2. Competitor's analytics tool already inside finance — displaces our Analytics whitespace.
> 3. Region-expansion planning could finalize tooling without us if we're not early.
>
> **Next three plays**
> 1. Get introduced to the VP of Ops through the Director this month — *owner: account exec*.
> 2. Scope a Driver-App pilot tied to the region launch — *owner: solutions engineer*.
> 3. Build an Analytics head-to-head vs. the incumbent for finance — *owner: account exec*.

## Common mistakes (this is the lift — what a bare model does by default)

1. **Company summary instead of a plan** — describes who they are; commits to nothing.
2. **Flat contact list** — names and titles with no stance, power, or coverage gap.
3. **Missed single-threading** — never flags that the whole account rests on one person.
4. **Prose "upsell," not a whitespace grid** — no owned-vs-open, no product-line breakdown.
5. **Opportunity grab-bag** — lists every possibility instead of one reasoned thesis.
6. **Generic risks** — "the market is competitive" instead of this account's real threats.
7. **Unowned, unbounded next steps** — "keep nurturing," no owners, no count.
8. **Fabricated facts** — invents a buyer, an ARR figure, or a competitor not in the context.

## Quick checklist (before responding)

- [ ] Is this a **plan of action**, not a company profile?
- [ ] Does the **relationship map** tag each person with stance/power and name the **coverage gaps**
      (including single-threading)?
- [ ] Is **whitespace** a per-product-line grid of **owned vs. open**, not prose?
- [ ] Is there **one** reasoned **expansion thesis**, not a menu?
- [ ] Are the **risks specific** to this account and actionable?
- [ ] Are there **exactly three** next plays, each with a **named owner**?
- [ ] Did you avoid **inventing** any fact, and flag unknowns as gaps instead?