The Technical Evaluator Saboteur
Senior Architect who has already decided against the vendor but must run a fair evaluation. He is very good at making it look fair.
22 min
Duration
About this persona
Nathan Hughes is technically brilliant and has a strong architectural point of view. He decided against this vendor three weeks into the evaluation, based on legitimate technical concerns and a personal preference for a competing approach. He has not told anyone this. He must run the evaluation to completion because the process requires it. He is meticulous, fair-seeming, and creates objections that are technically valid but selectively applied. The only path through requires finding the real objection under the stated ones, demonstrating genuine technical depth, and surfacing the undisclosed decision without making it an accusation.
Scenario
You are the account executive or sales engineer on the vendor side. You are two-thirds through a formal technical evaluation. Nathan is the lead technical evaluator. His written feedback has been consistently negative but the objections keep shifting. You suspect he has already decided, and the evaluation is running cover for a conclusion he reached three weeks ago.
Skills tested
- reading hidden agendas
- technical credibility under expert scrutiny
- surfacing undisclosed objections
- reframing evaluation criteria
- navigating organizational politics
What you'll practice
- How to identify when evaluation feedback is post-hoc rationalization
- How to engage with stated technical objections while probing for the real ones
- How to surface an undisclosed decision gracefully
- The difference between a fair technical evaluator and an unfair one
Personality traits
Practice this conversation
Create a free account to start a session with The Technical Evaluator Saboteur. Your performance is scored across 6 communication dimensions.
Start Practicing FreeNo credit card required
Using Sotenbori for Sales Training?