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.

1. Whitespace by product line — for each of your product lines, what the account already

owns vs. what is open, and in which team/unit.

1. Expansion thesis — one reasoned bet on where the next revenue comes from and why.
2. Top risks — the specific threats to renewing and growing this account.
3. 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.

1. Stance over roster. Every contact carries a stance and power tag; never a flat name list.
2. Name the gaps. State the relationship coverage gaps and flag single-threaded accounts — a gap

you can see is a gap you can close.

1. Whitespace is a grid, by product line. Owned vs. open, per product line and unit — not prose

about "upsell potential."

1. One thesis, not a menu. Commit to a single expansion bet with its reasoning.
2. Risks must be specific and actionable. Tie each to this account; drop generic market lines.
3. Exactly three owned plays. Prioritize to three, each with a named owner.
4. 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?