What's a good way to approach decisions that other teams feel they should own vs. Revenue Operations feels they should own?

When it comes to cross functional items, ownership has to be a partnership to succeed. While Revenue Operations may be the primary on Territory planning and Pipeline target setting, IT might take the lead on systems and tools, in close partnership with RevOps. In earlier stage environments, most teams will work together because there aren’t enough resources to get the work done any other way. As the company grows, teams will often look to take ownership of specific areas, but to what end? Ownership can be approached in different ways, with some leading to better outcomes than others.

• Ownership versus credit: Ownership should be synonymous with responsibility and accountability. If something gets done it’s not necessarily because the owner made sure the steps were taken to get there. That owner might also be seen as “getting credit” for the outcome. While responsibility and accountability are team focused, truly matter, and will drive the business forward as a team, credit and visibility do not, and initiate unproductive cycles instead. Focusing on the outcome, with clearly defined roles and responsibilities along the way, helps everyone succeed.
• Become the trusted source: Should Revenue Operations be involved in most areas of the business that impact revenue, customers, and the flow of business information? Probably. Do most organizations realize that this is the case? Probably not. In areas of the business where RevOps has not traditionally been seen as the de facto “owner” (think Sales Ops, Marketing Ops, Customer Success Ops Partner/Channel Ops), like data governance, go to market strategy to name a couple, earning the right to lead takes time. As RevOps is much more than the combination of the Operations teams, taking the time to provide expertise and prove the value of RevOps as a trusted partner makes the ownership decision much clearer. Helping to explain what the company has today and what it could have with more evolved RevOps taking on more ownership roles to the first step. Until that trust is earned, and it becomes more automatic, focusing on flawless execution, ideal outcomes, clear communication, while working cross-functionally as the best business partner RevOps can be will position RevOps for future success.
• State the case: If RevOps is not the owner of an initiative and the case for ownership is strong (based on the company, the team, and the situation) build a business case that outlines what RevOps will provide as the owner, what will be needed, who will be engaged, and what the go-forward plan is. Work to gain support for the ownership business case, keeping the above in mind that it’s the outcome that helps the business move ahead that matters.
• Clarity wins: Spending time deciding which team should own the next project, application evaluation, or account hierarchy update is time diverted away from planning, execution, and supporting the revenue organizations. When roles and responsibilities are clearly defined, ownership matters a lot less. As long as there is clarity and agreement on who is doing what by when, with a person’s name and a due date next to each action item and deliverable, ownership will take care of itself.

First, when I look at ownership, I look at “who is accountable for the success of the solution?”

If there is a conflict, I ask a few questions of the group to determine ownership:

1. What is the problem we’re trying to solve?

2. Who is most directly impacted by the outcome of the decision being made? Who is the CEO going to call if the solution goes sideways?

For example, when streamlining a manual process for sales, there are several problems to solve:

• Identify the important information to capture in the process

• Ensure automated data is captured and attributed accurately

• Enforce adherence to the process

• Ensure automation works as expected

Each of these problems could be owned by an individual department — or by the same department. By identifying the areas of accountability - and asking for accountability - it is easier to iron out which department should be responsible for aspects of a solution, versus one area owning everything.

• Understand Perspectives: Taking the time to understand the concerns and expertise of the other teams involved and why there are differing takes on ownership

• Collaborative Discussion: Initiate an open and collaborative discussion to explore different viewpoints and potential solutions to identify where teams can collaborate or own different pieces

• Alignment on Goals: This is where OKRs can help - focusing on shared goals and outcomes to determine how the decision aligns with organizational objectives can help remove friction

• Data-Driven Approach: Where possible, use data to inform the decision-making process and provide a neutral basis for evaluating the best way forward

• Consensus building: Finding common ground, shared ownership and building consensus can help determine ownership & swim lanes