0% found this document useful (0 votes)
13 views6 pages

Home Automation Project Overview: T. Reddy

Uploaded by

sumit.sharma
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as ODT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
13 views6 pages

Home Automation Project Overview: T. Reddy

Uploaded by

sumit.sharma
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as ODT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Customer Name: T.

Sushmakar Reddy Lead ID And Lead L122965 - DM


Type
Type of Home Independent Home Size of the House 13,000 SFT
Area Kukatpally Area Code
IDA Name Kalyan - Hues and tones IDA Code
Lead Date 14th Aug Demo Date 10th October
Site Visit Date 11th Oct Current Status Closed

Floor Plan Link:


[Link]
%20Marking%20(3).pdf
[Link]
%20marking%20(2).pdf
[Link]
%20&%20Brick%20Marking%20(2).pdf
[Link]
%20(2).pdf

Step 1: Choose your customer


Purpose: Identify and focus on real KEUS customers.
Steps to be taken:
• Filter customers based on criteria like home size, lifestyle, persona, and budget alignment.
Reflection Questions:
• Why was the customer selected?
The Architect, Mr. Kalyan from Hues & Stones, came for the demo. Based on the discussion, it
was evident that the Architect was relatively new and handling a project of this size (13,000
SFT) for the first time. We hardly discussed money, which made it obvious he was seeking
expertise in home automation. The lead was selected based on the size of the house, assuming
automation budget would not be a concern.
• Have there been examples of customers filtered out?
Nothing in the initial stage as information was limited.
• What was the stage of construction and your understanding of how to pace the discussion
with the lead basis the stage of construction?
At the brickwork stage, I emphasized to the Architect the importance of early involvement to
ensure both our work aligns and avoids project delays.
• If AL lead,
• What's the historical expense of this architect's client on interiors? NA
• Depending on the source of the lead (AL Lead), what is the IDA influence level (1 to
21)? 08
• Depending on the source of the lead (AL Lead), has the architect informed you
about customer involvement level? No
Challenges:
• Were there challenges in filtering?
No

Step 2: Dazzling Demo


Reflection Questions:
• Was the quote sent before the demo, and was there any reason for not being able to call
the customer for the demo?
No
• Did you study the layout of the house before the demo?
Yes
• Were you able to customize the demo to fit the house's layout?
The first demo was with the Architect, focusing on the project's scale and the need for our
expertise.
• Who attended the demo?
• Architect
• Client
• Client's brother and sister
• Did you check for additional demos for other family members and stakeholders?
Yes, when the client mentioned that his brother and sister would visit for a demo.
• Did you give an additional demo to other family members or stakeholders? Mention the
details.
Yes, for his brother Ratnakar and his sister.
• What do you think were the top 3 takeaways for the customer from your demo? Did we
ask?
From the demo with Mr. Sushamakar (main client):
• He likes to brag.
• He has a say in the decision-making process.
• Money should not be a concern.
• Were we able to probe the customer to understand his current understanding of
automation and his requirements?
Yes
• What were the specific objections asked by the customer at this stage, and what was your
understanding basis this?
He mentioned exploring a wired solution from Legrand and was looking for reliability. I
explained why wireless made more sense for him.
• How accurate is the data entered in CRM after the demo and site visit (Data Integrity)?
100%
• Did you take the commitment for the site visit post-demo?
Yes
• What was his understanding of automation post-demo, and how ready was he (0–100%)?
100% ready. He mentioned wanting the fourth floor (Party Area) to replicate our demo room's
experience.
Challenges:
• Any obstacles in giving a memorable, customized demo?
No
• Challenges in getting other members for the demo?
No, the client ensured his family attended.

Step 3: Site Visit


Reflection Questions:
• Did you visit the site?
Yes
• When did you visit the site?
The day after the demo.
• Did you meet the customer at the site?
Yes
• Did you ask the customer to explain the layout from their perspective?
Yes
• Did you ask them to explain the highlight areas of the house?
Yes
• Did you ask for the automation needs of the client for each highlight area?
Yes
• Did you ask the client for IDA details, and did the client share them?
Yes
• Did you ask the client to inform the IDA about your intention to visit and meet them to
explain the solution?
Yes
• Did you capture site images?
Yes
• Were you able to identify any urgency at the site?
Yes
• Were you able to identify the decision-maker(s)?
Yes
• Did you check for other stakeholders like Lighting Designer, PMC, IC, or Electrician?
No
• If yes, share the names of the stakeholders:
N/A
• What did you discuss with the other stakeholders?
Only with the Architect.
• Did you invite any of the stakeholders for a demo? If yes, did they attend?
Yes, the Architect, Brother Ratnakar, and Sister.
Briefly describe the site visit and highlight its value:
I visited the site with Mr. Sushamakar. The primary focus was the party area, which he was keen on
automating. I spent most of my time understanding his vision for the space, followed by exploring
other rooms. Before leaving, he committed the fourth floor to KEUS.
Challenges:
The Architect delayed sharing client details for over a month due to being stuck in Vijayawada floods.
Step 4: Stakeholder Buy-In
Reflection Questions:
• What steps did you take to ensure stakeholder buy-in?
Additional Family Members: Followed up for a demo with the brother.

IDA: The architect was already onboard.

Lighting Designer: No.

PMC: No.

IC: No.

Electrician: No.

Any Other: No.

• Were you able to identify who were the detractors, promoters, and neutral entities among
the stakeholders?
Yes. Only family members and the Architect.
• What was the cause/pain point of detractors?
Not applicable.
• What did we do to neutralize detractors and leverage promoters?
No detractors, the Architect and family were promoters.
Challenges:
None mentioned.

Step 5: High-Impact BOM Presentation


Reflection Questions:
• BOM Presentation Date:
7th November 2024
• Did you invite the IDA for the BOM presentation? If yes, did they attend?
Invited, but they could not attend.
• Explain the BOM presentation experience in your own words:
The presentation focused on convincing Mr. Ratnakar (the brother), as I missed his demo
earlier. He was practical and detail-oriented, so I emphasized functionality first, followed by
aesthetics.
• Share the customer response to the BOM presentation:
They appreciated it.
• Share the IDA’s response to the BOM presentation:
Not present.
• Did we professionally inform them about the duration of the BOM?
No.
• What was the time split between solution and commercials?
One month.
• Were we able to take a soft commitment for the next stage?
Yes.
Challenges in organizing or delivering the BOM presentation:
It was presented at the client’s home since his brother and sister didn’t want to visit again.

Step 6: Sales Conversion Mastery


Reflection Questions:
• Did you highlight the sense of urgency? If yes, how did you highlight it?
Yes, I emphasized that all stakeholders must collaborate to avoid delays.
• Did you delay the discount?
Yes.
• What was the initial quote?
16.28 + GST
• What was the first revised quote?
14.69 + GST
• What was the final discount? When did you give the final discount and why?
26% Towards the final negotiation. Client needed the satisfaction of discount.
• Did you ask the customer for a written note on commitment to close the sale within 2
days? If yes, what did you tell the customer?
Not provided.
• Did the customer send a note confirming the sale closure within 2 days? If yes, share the
note:
Not provided.
• Were we able to classify the scenario (why was the customer asking for a discount):
• (a) Genuinely short of money: No.
• (b) Wants satisfaction of hard negotiation: Yes.
• (c) Comparison with other quotations and inability to differentiate the value
provided: No.
• (d) Wants the best but at an unreasonable price point: No.
• What’s the customer segment and type? Give 2 or 3 examples/instances why it is so:
Passionate and Relational.
• Example 1: The client boasted about his possessions during the demo.
• Example 2: He committed the fourth floor to KEUS, demonstrating trust and personal
involvement.
• If the sale is not closed, what’s the current status of the sale?
Closed

Common questions

Powered by AI

Effective communication played a pivotal role in overcoming challenges and ensuring customer satisfaction. KEUS's transparent dialogues with the architect and stakeholders facilitated alignment of expectations. By addressing concerns like the client's interest in wired solutions, KEUS demonstrated adept communication in clarifying and guiding choices that bolstered customer confidence in wireless options. Additionally, timely follow-ups and in-depth discussions enabled resolution of potential delays linked to external factors, reinforcing trust and satisfaction throughout the project lifecycle .

Key factors included the early involvement of stakeholders through customized demos, effectively understanding the customer's vision for automation, and addressing his negotiation preferences with a substantial discount. Timely site visits and strategic engagements with family members ensured continual momentum toward closure. Moreover, identifying and leveraging promoters within the family and aligning the offer with the client’s psychological drivers, like pride in ownership and satisfaction from negotiation, ensured successful closure .

Family members played a crucial role in influencing the sales process as their involvement ensured multiple approvals and buy-ins. Demos were extended to the client's siblings, emphasizing understanding among all stakeholders. Stakeholder involvement via demos confirmed the decision-makers and promoters within the family, facilitating smoother buy-in and reducing resistance . The architect and the family were identified as promoters, which effectively neutralized potential objections and moved the sales process further .

KEUS secured stakeholder buy-in through strategic engagements like personalized demos involving key decision-makers, particularly family members, to ensure comprehensive understanding and approval. By inviting the architect onboard early and maintaining continuous communication, they established strong promoter support. Additionally, focusing on relationship-building and tailoring solutions to meet distinct customer needs reinforced stakeholder confidence, greatly contributing to a favorable project outcome .

During the initial lead filtering, no significant challenges were noted, as T. Sushmakar Reddy was an apparent choice based on project size and budget assumptions. However, a challenge arose during the site visit stage when the architect delayed providing client details due to external events like floods in Vijayawada. This was addressed by maintaining communication and patience until information could be finalized, ensuring no sustained barriers remained for moving forward with the project .

KEUS assessed the client's understanding and readiness for home automation post-demo through direct engagement and feedback gathering. T. Sushmakar Reddy was considered 100% ready, as he expressed eagerness to replicate demo room experiences, especially in the fourth-floor party area. The strategic discussion on wired versus wireless solutions, where KEUS positioned wireless as more beneficial for his setup, further enhanced his readiness and confidence in proceeding with automation .

The site visit allowed KEUS to gain a detailed understanding of the client’s vision for his home, particularly for areas like the party floor. By discussing the layout and specific automation needs directly with the client, alignment on project delivery was secured. The visit facilitated tangible insights into spatial configurations and customer expectations, enabling tailored solutions to enhance satisfaction and ensure precise execution of the client’s vision .

The discount strategy was primarily used to satisfy the client's desire for negotiation, rather than financial necessity. By offering a substantial final discount of 26%, KEUS catered to the client's need for feeling he achieved a 'hard bargain' instead of addressing a financial constraint . This approach was aligned with the customer's psychological need for negotiation satisfaction, reflecting keen understanding of customer personas rather than purely economic motivation .

The primary factors influencing the selection of T. Sushmakar Reddy as a customer were the size of his home, which suggested a significant potential for home automation, and the perception that budget would not be a constraint. Additionally, the architect handling the project, Mr. Kalyan, was relatively inexperienced with projects of this magnitude, implying a need for KEUS's expertise . These factors aligned with KEUS’s objective to focus on real customers likely to yield substantial projects that require their specialist knowledge .

KEUS ensured a customized demonstration by studying the house layout beforehand and tailoring the demo to fit this visualization. The demonstration involved the architect and key stakeholders like the client's family members, allowing for insights into the project's scale and integration needs. The main takeaways for the customer were his interest in showcasing the technology, involvement in decision-making, and being unconstrained by budget . This targeted approach facilitated comprehensive understanding and engagement with the project .

You might also like