Rate your collective experience with software sales reps. How honest have they been on a scale of 1-10, with 10 being absolutely honest and 1 being a total sleaze bag? Think of the used car sales rep and "We’re dealing" when you think of a 1.

In all fairness, this exercise is not intended to prove that the average software sales rep has the scruples of a politician.

Many enterprises view their key software vendors as strategic partners and the vendors’ account managers as integral to the relationship. As a general rule, I don’t believe that supply chain software firms engage in deception as a sales strategy.

The potential fallout from sub-performing implementations is just too great of a risk. Personally, I think that supply chain software reps are more honest as a category than most other sales professionals.

However, I won’t be surprised if a fair number of folks rated TV pitch ads as more believable. Some of this negativity is due to circumstances beyond the control of the salesperson.

For example, a project may go south due to poor vendor delivery or client execution. And, although the sales rep played it straight during the sales cycle, he or she may be considered guilty by association.

But I have to believe that a lot of this skepticism would come from people who felt they were sold a false bill of goods during the sales process. I have seen too many vendor proposals and responses that promised more than they could deliver.

Of course, any successful sales professional plays to win. Would you really want to buy a mission-critical application from a vendor that employed only brutally honest sales reps? I don’t think so.

Viability typically matters too much when selecting a software vendor. If a vendor isn’t willing to occasionally stretch the truth in pursuing sales, how successful will they be?

I’m not suggesting that it makes sense to seek vendors who employ pathological liars as sales representative. I’m only stating the obvious.

We expect software sales reps to aggressively spin their wares and package their message in pursuit of the ultimate prize. We realize that the truth may get twisted as part of this process.

This is why it is an accepted best practice to put structure around software selections. We document requirements, issue RFPs, rate vendor responses, conduct scripted demos, do site visits, and check references.

This helps, but it can’t guarantee complete honesty. It doesn’t eliminate the potential for over-promising and under-delivering.

At the end of the day, our selection process relies on words. And words are always open to interpretation.

We set up processes to validate vendors’ responses, but we also provide incentives that can implicitly encourage vendors to play loose with the truth.

The best we can do is to minimize the risk by doing a good job on our due diligence.

Solid contracts, project management and project teams are principle weapons to combat sub-performing projects.

But if we accept an offer that is really too good to be true during the sales process, then we have huge problems that will haunt us throughout the delivery phase.

Skepticism and disbelief cannot be the basis for any successful software procurement process. Trust must come into play as you proceed toward signing a contract.

However, trust needs to be accompanied by verification. So, how do you keep your vendors honest?

I think we all have a lot to learn in this area, so let the comments roll.

Tom

Photo credit: Emilio Labrador