# Territory and Quota Plan: [Sales organisation] [Plan year]

> The annual plan that turns a bookings target into sales capacity,
> territories and individual quotas: a capacity model with ramp and
> attrition, the gap to target and options to close it, territory design
> balanced on potential and workload, and the quota allocation rules.
> Based on common sales planning practice. Replace every `[bracketed]`
> value and every row marked *Example*.

<!--
Guidance: How to use this template
- Run it before the plan year, in parallel with the budget
  (`finance/annual-budget`), and agree the result with finance before
  quotas are issued in the compensation plan
  (`sales/sales-compensation-plan`).
- Build capacity bottom-up (section 2) and compare it with the top-down
  target (section 1). The gap is the most important number in the plan.
- Design territories on data (section 4): account potential and the work
  each account needs, not on who owned which account last year.
- Common pitfall: setting the target first and dividing it by headcount,
  without counting ramp time and attrition.
-->

## Document control

<!-- Guidance: Record the data cut-off and who approved the final target and quotas. -->

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plan ID | [TQP-YYYY] |
| Plan year | [2027] |
| Scope | [Segment, region, roles] |
| Version | [1.0] |
| Status | [Draft / Approved] |
| Owner | [@sales-operations-lead] |
| Approvers | [@chief-revenue-officer], [@cfo] |
| Data cut-off | YYYY-MM-DD |
| Last updated | YYYY-MM-DD |

### Revision history

| Version | Date | Author | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1.0 *(Example)* | 2026-11-30 | Sales operations | Plan approved with option C (section 3) |

## 1. Target and planning assumptions

<!-- Guidance: State the target and each assumption with its source. Use your own history for productivity, ramp and attrition. Questions: which assumption, if wrong, moves the result most? Pitfall: using the best seller's productivity as the norm. -->

| ID | Assumption | Value *(Example)* | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| ASM-01 | Company new ARR target | 9,600,000 | Board-approved plan |
| ASM-02 | Full-productivity quota per account executive (AE) | 800,000 | Last two years' bookings of ramped AEs |
| ASM-03 | Expected average attainment | 85% | Last three years' attainment |
| ASM-04 | Ramp | Months 1 to 3: 0%. Months 4 to 6: 50%. Month 7 on: 100% | Time to first booking of last 12 hires |
| ASM-05 | Attrition | 1.0 ramped AE-year lost | Prior-year regretted and other leavers |
| ASM-06 | Hiring | 3 AEs start January, 2 April, 2 July | Recruiting plan |

## 2. Capacity model

<!-- Guidance: Count productive capacity in ramped AE-years: a hire who is productive for half the year counts 0.5. Multiply by quota and by expected attainment to get expected bookings. -->

| Group | Headcount | Ramped AE-years each | Ramped AE-years *(Example)* |
|---|---|---|---|
| Existing AEs | 10 | 1.000 | 10.000 |
| January hires | 3 | 0.625 | 1.875 |
| April hires | 2 | 0.375 | 0.750 |
| July hires | 2 | 0.125 | 0.250 |
| Attrition | | | -1.000 |
| Total | 17 | | 11.875 |

A January hire has 0 months at full productivity in months 1 to 3, 3
months at 50% and 6 months at 100%: (1.5 + 6) / 12 = 0.625 ramped AE-years.

| Measure | Value *(Example)* |
|---|---|
| Capacity at quota (11.875 x 800,000) | 9,500,000 |
| Expected bookings at 85% attainment | 8,075,000 |
| Target | 9,600,000 |
| Gap | 1,525,000 |
| Ramped AE-years needed at 85% (9,600,000 / (800,000 x 85%)) | 14.12 |

## 3. Options to close the gap

<!-- Guidance: Show each option's effect on expected bookings and its cost. Decide with finance and record the decision. -->

| Option | Change | Ramped AE-years | Expected bookings | Meets target? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A *(Example)* | Plan as in section 2 | 11.875 | 8,075,000 | No |
| B *(Example)* | Hire 3 more AEs in January | 13.750 | 9,350,000 | No |
| C *(Example)* | Option B plus a retention programme that halves attrition | 14.250 | 9,690,000 | Yes |
| D | [Lower target, raise productivity through enablement, add partner channel] | [Value] | [Value] | [Yes / No] |

Decision: [Option C approved by CRO and CFO on YYYY-MM-DD, with hiring
budget for 6 January starts] *(Example)*.

## 4. Territory design

<!-- Guidance: Balance territories on potential (what could be sold) and workload (accounts and effort), within about plus or minus 10% of the mean. Questions: is potential measured the same way everywhere, and are travel or time zones fair? Pitfall: territories balanced on last year's bookings, which rewards incumbents. -->

Territory potential is [estimated annual new ARR opportunity from the
account scoring model]. Example region with four AEs:

| Territory | Accounts | Potential *(Example)* | Deviation from mean | Owner |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TER-01 North | 220 | 3,100,000 | +3.3% | [AE] |
| TER-02 South | 180 | 2,900,000 | -3.3% | [AE] |
| TER-03 Central | 260 | 3,300,000 | +10.0% | [AE] |
| TER-04 Coastal | 150 | 2,700,000 | -10.0% | [AE] |
| Region | 810 | 12,000,000 | Mean 3,000,000 | |

Design rules:

- Each named account is in exactly one territory, recorded in the CRM.
- Strategic accounts with an account plan (`sales/account-plan`) stay with
  their owner unless the CRO approves a move.
- Accounts moved after the plan start follow the quota relief rule in the
  compensation plan.

## 5. Quota allocation

<!-- Guidance: Quotas are allocated from the approved target. Many organisations assign slightly more in total quota than the target (overassignment) to absorb shortfalls. State the method so it can be audited. -->

| Rule | Value *(Example)* |
|---|---|
| Method | Region quota split in proportion to territory potential, rounded to 10,000 |
| Overassignment | Sum of AE quotas = [110%] of target |
| Manager quota | Sum of the team's AE quotas, or [100% of target for the team] |
| Ramp quota | New hires: prorated, with ramp as in ASM-04 |

| Territory | Share of potential | Quota *(Example)* |
|---|---|---|
| TER-01 North | 25.8% | 830,000 |
| TER-02 South | 24.2% | 770,000 |
| TER-03 Central | 27.5% | 880,000 |
| TER-04 Coastal | 22.5% | 720,000 |
| Region (4 x 800,000) | 100% | 3,200,000 |

## 6. Review and adjustments

<!-- Guidance: Plan a mid-year review of capacity and territories. Record changes and their reason. -->

| Date | Change | Reason | Approved by |
|---|---|---|---|
| YYYY-MM-DD | [Change] | [Reason] | [Name] |

Related templates: Pipeline Forecast Review
(`sales/pipeline-forecast-review`), Sales Management Card
(`mba/mba-sales-management-card`) for the economics of capacity and pay.

## Standard and licence note

Based on common sales capacity and territory planning practice. No
standard governs this document; all assumptions and figures are
illustrative. All text and examples are original. Template licence: MIT.