How to Align Customer Definitions Across Departments & Prevent VIP Tier Conflicts (feat. David Cohen)

Episode Summary

Every department in your company defines “most valuable customer” differently. Sales prioritizes deal size, Support focuses on customer success scores, and Product values feature adoption rates. The result? The same customer gets treated as both VIP and basic-tier depending on which team they interact with—creating confusion, frustration, and missed revenue opportunities. In this episode, David Cohen and host Lior Barak tackle this organizational alignment nightmare head-on, discovering the root causes and building a practical framework for creating unified customer definitions across your entire company.This episode is different. We’re not debugging code or fixing data pipelines. We’re solving the messy human problem underneath the metrics.

Problem Category: Organizational Data StrategyRuntime: 32 minutes

The Problem

Submitted by: AnonymousIndustry Context: Company with multiple departments (Sales, Support, Product, Marketing)

Problem Framework

* Issue: Every department in the company defines “most valuable customer” differently, making it impossible to create a coherent strategy or provide a consistent customer experience.

* Trigger: Launched a new VIP customer experience program last quarter. It turned into chaos. The same customers could be treated as high-value by sales (big contract) while getting basic support (low engagement score) and irrelevant marketing (different segment). Customers started complaining about inconsistent treatment.

* Tension:

* Each department insists its customer view is correct for their function

* Need one authoritative definition to guide the company's strategy

* Every stakeholder meeting devolves into arguments about whose metrics matter most

* Providing a confusing, fragmented experience to customers who don’t understand why treatment varies by team

* Current State:

* Sales ranks by revenue

* Support ranks by engagement frequency

* Product ranks by feature usage

* Marketing has its own segmentation based on campaign responses

* Boundaries: No master data management or unified customer scoring exists

* Tech Stack: Salesforce, Zendesk, product analytics platform, email marketing tools

* Clarity Statement: “Overcome the human problem of indecision in defining what value looks like and who in our customer base gets the most of it.”

Our Guest

David CohenFounder | Superposition

David runs a consulting firm that builds strategy workshops to help other consultancies in the data and AI spaces be more effective. He specializes in discovery processes for complicated and ambiguous client-facing projects, as well as internal growth needs for consultancies.

What makes David unique: He treats organizational alignment problems the way a workshop designer thinks - creating settings where ego can surface safely, conflicts can be resolved productively, and consensus can emerge from structured activities.

Background:

* Founder of Superposition consulting firm

* Specializes in strategy workshops for data/AI consultancies

* Expert in discovery processes for ambiguous projects

* Deep experience with stakeholder alignment challenges

* Long-time consultant and self-described “data nerd”

Philosophy: “This is actually a people problem and an ego problem rather than a technology or data one. The primary challenge is that we have an organization that does not agree on what value means.”

Connect with David:

* Website: https://www.superpositionstrat.com/

* LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/davcohen06/

The Solution

The Core Insight: You Need Therapy, Not Dashboards

Both David and Lior independently arrived at the same conclusion during their 15-minute brainstorm: This is an ego problem disguised as a metrics problem.

The departments aren’t confused about data. They’re protecting territory, defending their worldview, and fighting for organizational influence. No amount of data warehousing will fix that.

The Workshop-Based Alignment Process

Phase 1: Bring Everyone Together (Physically)

* Create a dedicated event or series of sessions

* In-person preferred (virtual as backup)

* Representatives from each pillar: Sales, Support, Product, Marketing, and any others

* Designate a leadership advocate with decision-making power

* Consider retaining external facilitator to provide unbiased perspective

Phase 2: Structure for Open Sharing

* Create a setting where people can openly share concerns

* Allow teams to express why their definition is “right”

* Let people complain freely in a controlled space

* Focus on logic, not debate club tactics

* Use “yes, and” building rather than defensive arguing

Phase 3: Define Value (Not Metrics)

* Don’t jump to building anything yet

* Start at the highest level: What does it mean to provide value to a customer?

* Create a shared glossary of terms

* Define what a VIP customer persona looks like (like defining an ICP)

* Acknowledge that value to the customer ≠ is profitable to the company (potential wrinkle)

Phase 4: Discard Before You Add

* Define which metrics DON’T matter (easier than agreeing on which do)

* Narrow the working area by elimination

* Run the same 3 customers through each department’s current definition

* Make the problem visible: Show how different the results are

Phase 5: Force the Conflict Productively

* Use the process to short-circuit the disconnect

* Each team selects a representative to defend their position

* Stack-rank existing customers to surface disagreements

* Designated leader has a tiebreaker vote (counts as double/triple)

* A leader can supersede loud voices and give time to quieter teams

Phase 6: Build the Unified Definition

* Create one persona of what a VIP customer is

* Allow teams to bring their data sources to the table

* Build a composite formula that incorporates multiple perspectives

* Review definitions with executives for sign-off

* Document what “valuable customer” means company-wide

Phase 7: Implementation

* Build dashboards and reports based on agreed metrics

* Create an implementation plan to roll out the new customer experience

* Establish consistent treatment across all touchpoints

* Measure the success of the unified approach

Critical Success Factors

1. Leadership Buy-In is Non-Negotiable. Without a leader who can make final decisions, this process never ends. You need someone with:

* Tiebreaker vote authority

* Power to supersede loud voices

* Ability to give time to teams that don’t naturally speak up

* Executive backing to enforce the decision

2. Consider External Facilitation. Why consultants exist for this type of work:

* Unbiased third party with no territorial stake

* Can “be the bad guy,” so internal leaders don’t have to

* Expertise in facilitating difficult conversations

* No emotional attachment to any department’s metrics

* Acts as an organizational therapist

3. Assume Resistance (Because It’s Real) One assumption David made: At least one department won’t want to participate. This is realistic. The process must account for:

* Political dynamics

* Ego protection

* Fear of losing influence

* Concern about “wrong” metrics winning

Visual Diagram

Key Takeaways

3 Critical Insights

* This is an Ego Problem, Not a Data Problem: The departments aren’t confused about metrics - they’re protecting territory and defending worldviews. Sales doesn’t actually think engagement frequency is wrong; they just don’t want Support’s definition to override theirs. You’re not solving for understanding the valuable customer. You’re solving for misalignment within your team. Treat it accordingly.

* Leadership Buy-In Determines Success or Failure: Without leadership mandate and a designated decision-maker, any efforts to solve this problem will inevitably fail. You need someone who can break ties, settle disputes, and enforce the final decision. Otherwise, you’ll cycle through endless stakeholder meetings that go nowhere.

* Internal Definitions Can Differ - Customer-Facing Ones Cannot: It’s actually fine if Sales, Support, Product, and Marketing measure success differently internally for their own optimization. The problem is when those different definitions create inconsistent customer experiences. You need a united front when it touches customers, even if internal reporting varies.

4 Action Items

For the next 90 days:

* Week 1-2: Set Up the Alignment Event(s) - Bring everybody together, preferably in person. Schedule dedicated time (potentially a full week) for working sessions. Identify which teams need representation beyond Sales/Support/Product/Marketing (HR? Customer Success? Finance?). Designate a leadership advocate who will serve as decision-maker and facilitator.

* Week 1-2: Decide on External Support - Evaluate whether to retain an outside consultant or facilitator to manage the process. Consider: Do you have someone internal who can be unbiased? Can your leader afford to “be the bad guy”? Is there enough trust for self-facilitation? External help speeds the process and protects internal relationships.

* Week 3-4: Run the Same 3 Customers Through Different Definitions - Make the problem visceral and visible. Show numerically how differently each department would treat the same customers. This activity surfaces the chaos in a way that’s hard to argue with. Use it early in sessions to build urgency for alignment.

* Week 4-12: Conduct the Alignment Sessions - Use structured workshop activities (see GameStorming book reference) to:

* Define shared language and glossary

* Build a unified customer value definition

* Create VIP customer persona

* Stack-rank existing customers using the new definition

* Document metrics and data sources

* Build an implementation roadmap

Episode Highlights

* 01:41 - “DO NOT TOUCH FINAL FINAL” - The universal file naming disaster

* 03:04 - Bad data tastes like unflavored cornflakes

* 07:02 - Clarity emerges: Defining what value means

* 08:25 - Critical assumption: Leadership buy-in exists (or doesn’t)

* 14:54 - The leader needs a tiebreaker vote power

* 20:18 - “This is literally what I do on a daily”

* 21:36 - Why leaders don’t want to be “the bad person”

* 22:39 - Consultants as organizational therapists

* 24:30 - The breakthrough: It’s okay to have different definitions internally

* 29:31 - Who else needs to be in the room?

What I Learned from David

As the host, here are three insights from working with David that shifted how I think about organizational data problems:

1. The Consultant-as-Therapist Reframe

David said something that made me pause: “You need somebody outside of that framework to be able to decide. You need to get a therapist.”

I’ve always thought of consultants as bringing expertise or capacity. David reframed it completely: Sometimes you need someone whose only job is to say the hard thing without worrying about next week’s team dynamics.

Leadership often doesn’t want to make these decisions because they don’t want to be “the bad person.” They’d rather hire an external who can take the heat, make the call, and leave. That’s not weakness - it’s smart relationship management.

2. Workshop Design is Strategic Thinking

Watching David think through this problem was like watching a game designer create levels. He wasn’t just planning what to discuss - he was architecting the settings where certain conversations could happen.

“Create a setting where people can openly share their concerns.” That’s intentional space design.

“Structure it so people can complain freely.” That’s psychological safety architecture.

“The leader needs power to supersede loud voices and give time to quiet teams.” That’s power dynamics engineering.

This isn’t facilitation tips - it’s understanding that the container shapes the outcome.

3. Discard Before You Add

“Define which metrics DON’T matter - that’s more important than defining which do.”

This flipped my approach. I always start with “What should we measure?” David starts with “What can we agree to stop measuring?”

It’s easier to build consensus around what to eliminate than what to prioritize. Once you’ve narrowed the field, choosing from what remains is manageable. But if you start by trying to pick winners, everyone defends their favorite metrics forever.

Bonus Observation: David immediately recognized this as his daily work (”This is literally what I do”). But instead of going into autopilot consultant mode, he stayed genuinely curious about the nuances. The mark of real expertise: Seeing a familiar problem and still finding it interesting.

Resources Mentioned

* GameStorming by Dave Gray, Sunni Brown, and James Macanufo: David’s recommendation for workshop activities and design thinking approaches. Manual for different scenarios and outcomes you can achieve through structured activities.

* Workshop Design Principles: Creating settings for open sharing, productive conflict, and forced consensus

* Superposition: David’s consulting firm focused on strategy workshops for data/AI consultancies

* Figma: Collaborative whiteboarding tool used during the brainstorming session

Continue the Conversation

Submit Your Data Problem

Have a challenge you’d like us to tackle? Use our structured framework:https://data-breakthroughs-podcast.cookingdata.blog/submit-problem

Become a Guest

Data practitioner interested in collaborative problem-solving? Apply here:https://data-breakthroughs-podcast.cookingdata.blog/become-guest

Share Your Alternative Solution

Did this episode spark a different approach? Share it with the community:

* Use #DataBreakthrough on social media

* Reply to this newsletter

What Would YOU Do?

We’d love to hear from listeners who have:

* Successfully aligned departments on shared metrics

* Run customer value definition workshops

* Navigated organizational politics around data definitions

* Brought in external facilitators for alignment work

How did you handle the ego dynamics? Share your experiences!

About Data Breakthroughs

Data Breakthroughs brings together data practitioners to solve real operational challenges through collaborative problem-solving. Each episode features authentic, unscripted brainstorming sessions where the host and guest encounter problems for the first time during recording, creating practical, implementable solutions.

Host: Lior Barak - VP/Head of Data | Data Strategy & Transformation Leader

Credits

Host & Producer: Lior BarakGuest: David CohenMusic: “Calisson” courtesy of RiversideVisual Content: Figma collaboration board

Accessibility

Episode Transcript: Full transcript available aboveVisual Diagrams: Figma board link provided; all visual content described verbally during episode

Disclaimer

This podcast is for inspiration and educational purposes. The solutions and approaches discussed are general frameworks meant to spark ideas and collaboration. Always adapt recommendations to your specific organizational context, constraints, and requirements. The goal is to have fun while exploring data challenges together!

Connect with David Cohen:

* 🌐 Website: https://www.superpositionstrat.com/

https://superposition.co

* 💼 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/davcohen06/

* 🏢 Company: Superposition - Strategy workshops for data & AI consultancies