Territory Design Fairness Scorecard
A six-criteria fairness scorecard that scores a proposed territory carve-up — revenue parity, account-count parity, logistics burden, pipeline inheritance, ramp-adjusted opportunity, and performance neutrality — before reps ever see the new map.
What's inside
- 6 fairness criteria, each with a concrete test methodology (Revenue Potential Parity, Account Count Parity, Logistics/Access Burden Parity, Pipeline Inheritance Value, Ramp-Adjusted Opportunity, Historical Performance Neutrality)
- 1–5 scoring scale per criterion, 30-point total
- Pass / Conditional / Redesign verdict thresholds
- 3 pre-mortem questions to run regardless of score
- Sign-off block for preparer and second-line reviewer
Score a proposed territory carve-up against six fairness criteria before reps ever see the map. A territory redesign that fails this scorecard will generate more attrition and grievance time than the rebalancing was worth.
The Six Criteria (score each 1–5, 5 = most fair)
1. Revenue Potential Parity — Is TAM (or existing ARR + whitespace potential) roughly comparable across reps at the same level, after adjusting for tenure/ramp? Test: calculate TAM-per-rep for every proposed territory. Flag any variance greater than ±20% from the team average.
2. Account Count Parity — Is the number of accounts per rep proportionate to what a rep can realistically work (not just dollars, but volume of relationships to maintain)? Test: account count per rep, adjusted for average deal complexity/cycle length by segment.
3. Logistics / Access Burden Parity — For field reps: travel time and geographic spread. For remote reps: time-zone coverage and working-hours overlap with accounts. Test: estimate average travel hours or time-zone-overlap hours per rep; flag outliers.
4. Pipeline Inheritance Value — Is the value of open pipeline being transferred in/out of each territory roughly balanced, or is one rep inheriting a windfall while another inherits an empty pipe? Test: sum open pipeline $ transferring into each new territory.
5. Ramp-Adjusted Opportunity — Does a newer rep get a fair on-ramp (enough near-term winnable business), rather than only long-cycle whitespace that won't close inside their ramp window? Test: check the "Now"-tier whitespace count landing in each ramping rep's new patch.
6. Historical Performance Neutrality — Is the redesign stripping a top performer's best accounts as an implicit penalty for having built them well, or rewarding underperformance with an easier patch? Test: compare each rep's best 10 accounts pre- and post-redesign — flag any case where a top performer's top accounts are disproportionately reassigned away.
Scoring
| Criterion | Score (1–5) |
|---|---|
| 1. Revenue Potential Parity | ___ |
| 2. Account Count Parity | ___ |
| 3. Logistics/Access Burden Parity | ___ |
| 4. Pipeline Inheritance Value | ___ |
| 5. Ramp-Adjusted Opportunity | ___ |
| 6. Historical Performance Neutrality | ___ |
| Total (max 30) | ___ |
| Total | Verdict |
|---|---|
| 24–30 | Pass — proceed to announcement |
| 18–23 | Conditional — fix the specific low-scoring criteria before rollout |
| Under 18 | Redesign — do not announce this map yet |
Pre-Mortem Questions (run before finalizing, regardless of score)
- If you were the most senior rep on this team, which specific account move would you object to first — and is that objection actually valid?
- Which rep, if any, will see their OTE materially decrease under this map with no corresponding change in effort or skill? How is that addressed?
- Is there any account move on this map that looks like it's solving a personnel problem (e.g., moving accounts away from someone as a soft demotion) rather than a coverage problem? Name it explicitly, or remove it.
Sign-Off
- Prepared by: ______________________
- Reviewed by (2nd-line leader): ______________________
- Date scorecard completed: ______________________
- Score: ___ / 30 — Decision: Pass / Conditional / Redesign
How to use it
Score the proposed map against all six criteria before any announcement; a total under 24/30 means fix the flagged criteria first, and run the three pre-mortem questions regardless of score.