Which adoption blocker gets the escalation?
Compare a feasible success plan with a busy but ineffective activity.
“Keep exit criteria and DRIs up to date in the CS Help request” (opens the source)
The question
Aster is considering renewal. The implementation fee is already paid; forward annual fees are $60,000. An integration blocks workflows, holding coverage at 60%. The decision window is 15 days. There are eight CSM hours and 16 engineering hours available.
| CSM hours | Engineering hours | Coverage scenario | Delivery | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| General training | 8 | 0 | 60% | 5 days |
| Integration plus buyer value review | 7 | 16 | 80% if verified | 7 days approval + 7 days implementation |
Training cannot remove this integration blocker. The integration scenario is a forecast, not delivered value. The seven CSM hours include a three-hour buyer review.
“Choose a plan. Name the owner, exit criteria and condition that changes your commitment.”
Not saved by this site. Your browser may restore text when you navigate back.
A strong answer, step by step
Open each step in turn. This is one strong answer, not the only one.
Step 1: Address the actual barrier
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Run training because it reaches more people.
Tempting, but it misses something. The packet says integration still blocks the workflows.
Address the integration and validate the buyer’s goal.
The strong move. More activity does not remove the integration dependency.
See how a strong candidate says it
“General training leaves coverage at 60%, so the proxy stays $57,600.”
Why it works: More activity does not remove the integration dependency.
Step 2: Check the available resources
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Confirm both resource owners.
The strong move. A plan must fit both functions’ available capacity.
Promise the fix without checking engineering.
Tempting, but it misses something. The CSM cannot supply the required engineering hours.
See how a strong candidate says it
“Integration plus review needs seven of eight CSM hours and all 16 engineering hours.”
Why it works: A plan must fit both functions’ available capacity.
Step 3: Check the calendar
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Count approval and implementation in parallel.
Tempting, but it misses something. Implementation starts only after customer approval.
Show the one-day schedule margin.
The strong move. The two activities are sequential.
See how a strong candidate says it
“Seven days of approval plus seven of implementation gives day 14: one day before the deadline.”
Why it works: The two activities are sequential.
Step 4: Own closure and the commercial decision
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Keep owner, exit evidence and timing current.
The strong move. At 80% coverage the proxy is $81,600, but delivery and value remain conditional.
Promise renewal because the projected proxy is positive.
Tempting, but it misses something. A forecast and a proxy do not establish delivery or willingness to renew.
See how a strong candidate says it
“Name the account and technical owners. Close when approval is complete, a customer sample verifies the workflow, and the buyer reviews the value evidence.”
Why it works: At 80% coverage the proxy is $81,600, but delivery and value remain conditional.
The answer, in short
- Decision
- Confirm resources for the integration and buyer review; keep the commitment conditional.
- Because
- It addresses the blocker and fits the baseline window by only one day.
- What would change it
- A three-day approval delay moves completion to day 17, two days beyond the deadline. With 12 engineering hours, the plan is not resourced.
Approval slips three days. What do you tell the renewal owner and the customer?
Common traps
- Treating projected value as a delivered outcome.
- Promising a date before checking sequential dependencies.
Check your answer
- I addressed the actual blocker.
- I checked both resource budgets.
- I calculated the sequential timeline.
- I named owner and closure evidence.
Last reviewed Nov 10, 2026