The difference between pipeline and progress

Pipeline is a vanity metric. It looks impressive in a forecast review. It gives the appearance of momentum. But it doesn't predict revenue. What predicts revenue is progress: deals that are advancing through clear milestones, with committed stakeholders, toward a defined close date.

The problem is that many sales organisations optimise for pipeline coverage rather than pipeline quality. The logic is simple: if you have enough opportunities, some of them will close. So the focus becomes generating more leads, more meetings, more proposals. The pipeline grows. The forecast looks healthy. But nothing is actually moving.

This is especially common in complex sales. The cycles are long. The deals are large. It's easy to justify keeping an opportunity in the forecast for months, even if there's no real progress. The customer is "still interested." They're "working through internal approvals." They're "evaluating other options." These are all plausible reasons for a deal to stay open. But they're also signs that the deal isn't progressing.

Real progress has specific indicators. The customer has agreed to a next step with a specific date. They've introduced you to additional stakeholders. They've committed time and resources to a proof of concept. They've shared internal timelines, budget details, or approval processes. These are actions, not words. If the customer isn't taking action, the deal isn't moving.

The difference between pipeline and progress becomes obvious in forecast accuracy. A forecast based on pipeline coverage assumes that a certain percentage of opportunities will close. But if the opportunities aren't advancing, the percentage doesn't matter. You can have 5x pipeline coverage and still miss the quarter, because none of the deals were real.

A forecast based on progress is different. It tracks specific milestones. It measures whether deals are advancing at the expected pace. It flags opportunities that have stalled and removes them from the forecast until there's evidence of movement. This approach feels more conservative. The pipeline looks smaller. But the forecast is more accurate, because it's based on what's actually happening, not on what might happen.

The challenge is that removing stalled deals from the forecast creates pressure. It makes the pipeline look weaker. It forces the organisation to confront the reality that they don't have enough real opportunities to hit the number. This is uncomfortable. But it's also necessary. Because pretending that stalled deals are still viable doesn't generate revenue. It just delays the inevitable.

The other issue is how deals get added to the pipeline. In many organisations, any opportunity that meets basic qualification criteria gets added to the forecast. The customer has budget. They have a problem. They've agreed to a meeting. That's enough to create an opportunity and assign it a probability. But this doesn't mean the deal is real. It just means the customer is willing to talk.

A better approach is to qualify harder upfront. Before an opportunity enters the forecast, it should meet stricter criteria. The customer has a defined timeline. They've committed to a structured evaluation process. They've identified the stakeholders who need to approve the purchase. They've shared their decision-making criteria. If these things aren't in place, the opportunity shouldn't be forecasted. It should be tracked separately, as a prospect, until there's real evidence of intent.

This doesn't mean ignoring early-stage opportunities. It means being honest about what stage they're in. A conversation with a mid-level stakeholder who's interested in learning more is not the same as a qualified opportunity with executive sponsorship. Treating them the same inflates the pipeline and obscures the real state of the business.

Progress also requires accountability. If a deal hasn't advanced in 30 days, something is wrong. Either the customer isn't engaged, or the seller isn't driving the process. In either case, the deal needs attention. The seller should have a clear plan for what needs to happen next. If they don't, the deal should be removed from the forecast.

The hardest part is maintaining discipline when the pipeline is thin. The instinct is to keep everything in the forecast, to avoid looking like you're behind. But this creates false confidence. It leads to poor resource allocation. It makes it harder to identify the real problems: not enough leads, not enough qualified opportunities, or a sales process that isn't converting.

A healthy sales organisation measures progress, not just pipeline. It tracks how quickly deals move through each stage. It identifies where deals stall and why. It removes opportunities that aren't advancing and focuses energy on the ones that are. This creates clarity. It makes forecasts more accurate. And it forces the organisation to confront gaps early, when there's still time to fix them.

Pipeline is a leading indicator. But it's only useful if it reflects reality. If the pipeline is full of stalled deals, wishful thinking, and over-optimistic probabilities, it's not a leading indicator. It's noise. Progress is what matters. And progress is measured by what's closing, not by what's being forecasted.