Success Criteria Re-evaluation

I just watched an AE lose a $1.2M deal after running a "successful" product trial that the prospect LOVED. After 8 weeks of work, the CFO killed it with five words: "Let's try our current vendor." After analyzing 200+ enterprise sales cycles at companies including Salesforce, HubSpot, Thomson Reuters, and Workday, I've identified the exact framework that separates 80%+ trial conversion rates from the industry average of 30%. The psychological shift required… Stop treating trials as product demos and start treating them as RISK ELIMINATION EXERCISES. After being promoted 12 times and hitting #1 in every role before leading a 110-person team to $190M+ annually, I've developed a framework that's transformed how top companies run trials. THE 5 POINT TRIAL QUALIFICATION SYSTEM: 1. 𝗣𝗥𝗢𝗕𝗟𝗘𝗠 𝗩𝗔𝗟𝗜𝗗𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡 Ask these 3 questions before any trial: → "What happens if you don't solve this in 90 days?" (quantify impact)  → "How have you tried solving this before?" (establishes solution gap)  → "Who else is affected?" (identifies stakeholders) These eliminate 68% of unqualified trials before they start. 2. 𝗦𝗨𝗖𝗖𝗘𝗦𝗦 𝗗𝗘𝗙𝗜𝗡𝗜𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡 Document these 4 criteria: → Technical requirements (features that must work)  → Business metrics (quantifiable outcomes)  → Timeline requirements (implementation speed)  → User adoption requirements (usage patterns) Get confirmation: "If we demonstrate [criteria], you'd move forward with purchase by [date]. Correct?" 3. 𝗦𝗧𝗔𝗞𝗘𝗛𝗢𝗟𝗗𝗘𝗥 𝗠𝗔𝗣𝗣𝗜𝗡𝗚 Create a "Decision Matrix" for: → Technical buyers (every trial user)  → Economic buyers (CFO/budget holder)  → Political influencers (who can kill it)  → Current solution advocates (status quo beneficiaries) Document each person's personal win/loss if change happens. 4. 𝗣𝗥𝗘-𝗧𝗥𝗜𝗔𝗟 𝗔𝗚𝗥𝗘𝗘𝗠𝗘𝗡𝗧 Have legal review BEFORE starting: "We typically have legal review the agreement structure ahead of time so there are no surprises and to save us both time so we can hit the deadline of December 1st you set. Would you be open to this during the trial?" 5. 𝗖𝗨𝗥𝗥𝗘𝗡𝗧 𝗩𝗘𝗡𝗗𝗢𝗥 𝗦𝗧𝗥𝗔𝗧𝗘𝗚𝗬 Ask: → "Have you discussed these challenges with your current vendor?"  → "What was their response?"  → "What specific capabilities do they lack?" Document these to prevent the "let's try our current vendor" objection. RESULTS from this framework: ✅ Trial conversion: 32% to 83% in 60 days  ✅ Average deal size: +40%  ✅ Sales cycle: -37%  ✅ Forecast accuracy: +92%  ✅ Time on unsuccessful trials: -43% — Hey Sales Leaders! Want to see how we can install these kinds of results into your org? Go here: https://lnkd.in/ghh8VCaf

Evaluating LLMs is hard. Evaluating agents is even harder. This is one of the most common challenges I see when teams move from using LLMs in isolation to deploying agents that act over time, use tools, interact with APIs, and coordinate across roles. These systems make a series of decisions, not just a single prediction. As a result, success or failure depends on more than whether the final answer is correct. Despite this, many teams still rely on basic task success metrics or manual reviews. Some build internal evaluation dashboards, but most of these efforts are narrowly scoped and miss the bigger picture. Observability tools exist, but they are not enough on their own. Google’s ADK telemetry provides traces of tool use and reasoning chains. LangSmith gives structured logging for LangChain-based workflows. Frameworks like CrewAI, AutoGen, and OpenAgents expose role-specific actions and memory updates. These are helpful for debugging, but they do not tell you how well the agent performed across dimensions like coordination, learning, or adaptability. Two recent research directions offer much-needed structure. One proposes breaking down agent evaluation into behavioral components like plan quality, adaptability, and inter-agent coordination. Another argues for longitudinal tracking, focusing on how agents evolve over time, whether they drift or stabilize, and whether they generalize or forget. If you are evaluating agents today, here are the most important criteria to measure: • 𝗧𝗮𝘀𝗸 𝘀𝘂𝗰𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀: Did the agent complete the task, and was the outcome verifiable? • 𝗣𝗹𝗮𝗻 𝗾𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆: Was the initial strategy reasonable and efficient? • 𝗔𝗱𝗮𝗽𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻: Did the agent handle tool failures, retry intelligently, or escalate when needed? • 𝗠𝗲𝗺𝗼𝗿𝘆 𝘂𝘀𝗮𝗴𝗲: Was memory referenced meaningfully, or ignored? • 𝗖𝗼𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 (𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗺𝘂𝗹𝘁𝗶-𝗮𝗴𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝘀𝘆𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗺𝘀): Did agents delegate, share information, and avoid redundancy? • 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲: Did behavior remain consistent across runs or drift unpredictably? For adaptive agents or those in production, this becomes even more critical. Evaluation systems should be time-aware, tracking changes in behavior, error rates, and success patterns over time. Static accuracy alone will not explain why an agent performs well one day and fails the next. Structured evaluation is not just about dashboards. It is the foundation for improving agent design. Without clear signals, you cannot diagnose whether failure came from the LLM, the plan, the tool, or the orchestration logic. If your agents are planning, adapting, or coordinating across steps or roles, now is the time to move past simple correctness checks and build a robust, multi-dimensional evaluation framework. It is the only way to scale intelligent behavior with confidence.

Over two decades of working in public health, education, climate resilience, livelihoods, and gender in India and South Asia, I’ve learned to value measurement and recognise its limits. ToCs and log frames are essential. They bring structure, clarity, and accountability. But when treated as compliance exercises rather than learning tools, they risk disconnecting reported success from real change. In Bihar, a skilling program for adolescent girls boasted 90% completion rates, yet only 12% transitioned into paid work. The ToC missed barriers like unpaid care work and mobility restrictions, which surfaced only through qualitative interviews. In Tamil Nadu, salt-tolerant paddy was introduced for climate resilience. Quantitative indicators flagged yield drops, but fieldwork revealed the real issues: lack of credit, market gaps, and social resistance to non-traditional seeds. In Maharashtra, a WASH programme reported 100% toilet access in public schools. Yet girls in SC/ST hostels avoided food and water to avoid using unsafe facilities—flagged only via behavioural observation. In Bangladesh, cyclone shelters met all infrastructure benchmarks. But many women refused to enter them during an actual event, citing fears of sexual violence and lack of privacy—data missed in the original evaluation. These examples are not anomalies. They illustrate what happens when we define success narrowly—by what’s easy to count, not what truly matters. This isn’t a case against measurement. It’s a call to design for it differently: fund ethnographic follow-ups, use participatory tools, and train MEL teams to notice silences—not just check indicators. Most importantly, ask: who defines success? Community voice, contextual insight, and behavioural nuance must be embedded from the start, not added on as anecdotes at the end. Development in South Asia isn’t linear, and our evaluations should not pretend it is. What have you learned when the numbers looked good—but the reality on the ground told another story? #Evaluation #MixedMethods #DevelopmentEffectiveness #WEE #PublicHealth #ClimateResilience #LearningNotJustCounting

Evaluation is both an art and a science, balancing systematic analysis with the nuanced understanding of complex interventions. The "Applying Evaluation Criteria Thoughtfully" guide by the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) introduces a refined framework for using the six evaluation criteria—relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, and sustainability—in a way that goes beyond checklist approaches. Instead, it emphasizes the importance of critical thinking, adaptability, and context sensitivity in every stage of the evaluation process. This document integrates three decades of global evaluation practice with contemporary priorities such as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and human rights frameworks. It underscores the need to consider interconnections, equity gaps, and the holistic impacts of interventions. By providing examples, insights, and practical guidance, the manual ensures that evaluators and decision-makers can navigate diverse contexts, addressing complexities in implementation and fostering meaningful accountability and learning. Tailored for policymakers, evaluators, and development practitioners, this resource elevates evaluation practice to ensure that interventions not only meet their objectives but also generate transformative and sustainable impacts. By adopting its principles, users can advance evidence-based strategies, improving global collaboration and the effectiveness of development cooperation.

Rethinking Project Success: Beyond the Triple Constraint Traditionally, project managers measured success by three classic criteria: ⏱️ Time – Did we deliver on schedule? 💰 Budget – Did we stay within the approved costs? ✅ Quality – Does the final product meet the agreed specifications? A project can be on time, on budget and technically correct—yet still fail if the client isn’t satisfied or the outcome doesn’t meet their real needs. A project can hit every internal target and still miss the bigger picture. A more complete framework looks at four dimensions of success: 1️⃣ Project efficiency – Did we meet budget and schedule expectations? 2️⃣ Impact on customer – Did we satisfy the client’s real needs? 3️⃣ Business success – Did the project create measurable commercial value? 4️⃣ Preparing for the future – Did it open new markets, products or technologies that position us for growth? This approach reminds us that ✅ Long-term value matters just as much as immediate results ✅ Projects aren’t just tasks to complete—they’re investments in tomorrow. Client acceptance shifts the spotlight from the accounting ledger to the marketplace, highlighting that the ultimate measure of success is the value we create for the people we serve. How does your organization measure success? #ProjectManagement #Leadership #CustomerFocus #BusinessGrowth

Success criteria defined at go-live is not success criteria. It is damage control. In my experience across operations in Africa, the projects that consistently deliver value share one thing: success criteria were defined before the project started. Not after deployment. Not during UAT. Before kickoff. This means agreeing upfront on: What specific operational problem the technology solves. What measurable improvement looks like: cycle time, payload variance, planning accuracy. Who is accountable for delivering that improvement. How performance will be tracked at 90, 180, and 365 days post go-live. Without this, projects default to measuring the wrong things: system uptime, training completion, user counts. These are inputs. They are not value. The GMG Foundations of AI: A Framework for AI in Mining is direct on this point: defining the problem and success criteria is a structured process that must happen before implementation begins. Not after the system is live. This applies equally to fleet management, short interval control, and any other operational technology. This connects to my last post on capability maturity. Routines cannot be designed around a system whose value was never defined upfront. The two failures compound each other. If your success criteria cannot be written on a single page before the project starts, the technology is not ready to be deployed. Define the value first. Then build toward it. #MiningTechnology #MiningIndustry #DigitalTransformation #TechnologyAdoption #AfricaMining #OperationalExcellence

Let’s talk about Project Management Institute research: 1. Project Success Redefined PMI is shifting its focus from project management success (on time, on budget) to actual project success—defined as delivering value worth the effort and expense. This broader view includes stakeholder perceptions, long-term outcomes, and alignment with evolving needs. 2. MORE Framework for Success The acronym MORE captures four critical behaviors: • Manage Perceptions: Understand and influence stakeholder views. • Own Project Success: Go beyond just execution responsibilities. • Relentlessly Reassess: Continuously adapt to change and ambiguity. • Expand Perspective: Consider interdependencies and broader impacts. 3. Massive Research Backing The PMI Project Success Initiative was PMI’s largest research effort ever, involving: • A 90-page literature review • 90 qualitative interviews • A global survey with ~10,000 stakeholders from 141 countries across 10 industries This research produced a stakeholder-driven definition of success and introduced the Net Project Success Score (NPSS). 4. Three Game-Changing Practices Projects were found to be twice as likely to succeed when they: • Clearly define success criteria at the beginning • Implement performance measurement systems that guide decisions • Track performance consistently throughout the project lifecycle Only 38% of projects actually applied all three—revealing major room for improvement. 5. Subjectivity is a Feature, Not a Flaw Tools like NPSS intentionally include subjective perceptions because success involves nuance. Similar to product reviews, perceptions fuel real-world decisions. With AI and automation handling routine tasks, project managers can now focus more on these human-centered, strategic conversations. Final Takeaway Project success in today’s world is no longer just about managing constraints; it’s about delivering meaningful value in the eyes of diverse stakeholders. PMI’s evolving approach—centered around perception, adaptability, and purpose—aims to elevate the profession into a more strategic, integrated role in shaping organizational outcomes.

⭐ CRITERIA — Part 1: When Great Deals Stall for Invisible Reasons We’ve defined Success. Mapped the Situation. Prioritized the pain. Traced the ripple. Measured the cost of waiting. And in the last two posts, we built and empowered a true Champion. So why do deals still stall—even when all of that is in place? With SMC Sales, When we run stuck deals through Trust But Verify™, three truths repeat: It’s not Implications. It’s not Inaction. And we do have a Champion… Which means the stall almost always lives here: 👉 Criteria. Not missing criteria. The WRONG criteria. ⭐ 2 Types of Criteria (Gravity & Growth) Most evaluations default to Gravity Criteria: “Does it match what we already have?” “Will it integrate?” “Can you meet budget?” “Does this fit our workflow?” They sound reasonable. But they anchor buyers to the status quo. Gravity criterion doesn't move decisions. It stalls them. Buyers don’t go dark because they don’t care. They go dark because nothing is pulling them forward. Growth Criteria sounds different: “What must be true for this change to be worth it?” “What outcomes justify the investment?” “What does success look like for each stakeholder?” “What future capabilities does the team need?” Growth criteria doesn't compare vendors. It defines progress. And here’s the stat that proves it: 📊 Strategic contributors who help buyers shape a new buying vision win 74% of the time. The remaining 26% turns into a feature-and-price bake-off. Growth criteria = the 74% side. Gravity criteria = the 26% knife fight. Gartner gives us the reality: Buying groups: 6–10 stakeholders Each brings 4–5 conflicting information sources Consensus becomes chaos. When the room is overloaded, buyers fall back to gravity—because gravity feels safe. This is where your Champion matters. This is where your Level of Relationship matters. This is where the Laws of Influence—reciprocity, commitment, proof—start to work. Champions don’t just advocate. They align the room around what “good” looks like. ⭐ Why Criteria Deserved Its Own Letter in SSPPIICCCCEDDD™ The original SPICED flows: Situation → Pain → Impact → Critical Event → Decision Useful—but incomplete. In real stalled deals, the missing pivot is clear: Implications → Cost of Inaction → Champion → Criteria → (then) Competition, Critical Event and Engagement. Criteria isn’t a checkbox. It’s the turning point. Without growth criteria, every deal eventually drifts back into gravity. And gravity kills momentum. ⭐ What Comes Next (Part 2) Next time, we’ll break down how to co-create growth criteria with your Champion using: Proof → Perspective → Probe™ Buyer-authored scorecards Stakeholder alignment prompts Tools that shift criteria from “safe” to “strategic” Defining the problem wins attention. Defining the standard for success? That’s what earns commitment. Proof over opinion. Trust your team. Verify your truth. Trust… BUT VERIFY™