From Handoff to Handshake: Why GTM Velocity Starts Before the Quote
A recent blog on Vocal, Rethinking GTM Architecture: Why Throughput Beats Handoffs, made a strong case that go-to-market velocity is lost not in strategy but in the broken relay race between quoting, approvals, contracting, and billing. The author argued that AI-powered CPQ can solve these bottlenecks by accelerating throughput. That diagnosis is correct, but it is also incomplete.
Velocity does not suddenly become a problem at quoting. It begins much earlier, at the first signs of rep disconnection, CRM clutter, and pipeline ambiguity. By the time a quote is generated, executional drag has already taken root. The Vocal article is right that handoffs are the culprit, but it misses that many of the most costly handoffs happen well before CPQ ever enters the picture.
Where Velocity Really Slows
Velocity collapses when a rep spends half an afternoon digging through Slack to find the last customer objection. It collapses when opportunity notes live in one tool, tasks in another, and forecasts in a spreadsheet nobody trusts.
By the time a deal makes it into CPQ, much of the damage is already done. The deal isn’t stalling because pricing is clunky, it’s stalling because execution upstream was fragmented. CPQ fixes the final relay handoff, but the race is already lost if the baton is dropped three runners earlier.
Strategy Can’t Outrun Fragmentation
The Vocal article frames the challenge as structural rather than strategic, and on that point we agree. But strategy only carries you so far. Every revenue organization has a strategy deck that looks airtight in theory. Territories are mapped, plays are defined, markets are segmented.
Yet in practice, execution is where strategy goes to die. When systems are fragmented, reps make up their own workflows. When managers can’t trust CRM data, they hedge decisions. When RevOps spends more time fixing inputs than driving outcomes, velocity evaporates.
The article is right that throughput beats handoffs, but throughput begins upstream, not just at quoting.
Clarity Beats Configuration
The Vocal blog highlights CPQ as the place where structure is imposed, but structural clarity needs to run throughout the pipeline. Executional failure isn’t confined to billing systems. It happens every time data is entered in the wrong place or not entered at all.
Clarity isn’t a CPQ feature, it’s a system-wide necessity.
Here’s where clarity disappears:
- Reps don’t know where to log deal context, so they slow down.
- Managers don’t believe forecasts, so they delay decisions.
- RevOps can’t connect activities to outcomes, so the system stalls.
Without clarity, configuration at quoting can only paper over upstream chaos.
Execution as System Design
Handoffs aren’t just moments of transaction; they’re symptoms of design flaws. A well-designed GTM system should operate like a city with coordinated roads, signals, and transit. Movement flows because the design anticipates and prevents friction.
Fragmented systems, by contrast, look like cities built without zoning: chaotic streets, incomplete roads, constant detours. You can add faster cars or better maps, but without systemic design, gridlock is inevitable.
The Vocal blog treats CPQ as the traffic light at the last intersection, but the real challenge is designing the whole city, not just one junction.
The False Comfort of CPQ Alone
CPQ is valuable, but it offers a false sense of security. Imagine a cycle where discovery notes are scattered, tasks are missed, and forecasts are padded with wishful thinking. By the time the deal makes it into CPQ, it’s already fragile.
The Vocal argument is true at quoting, but quoting is too late to fix executional drag that has already compromised the deal.
Why AI Won’t Save a Broken System
The Vocal blog invokes AI as the lever to accelerate throughput. But AI is only as good as the system it operates on. Garbage in, garbage out.
If notes are missing, data is stale, and context is fragmented, then AI simply automates confusion. Instead of helping, it multiplies the noise.
The future of GTM velocity isn’t just AI-powered CPQ. It’s AI-ready executional architecture across the funnel.
Moving from Fragmentation to Flow
To extend the Vocal article’s thesis, throughput does matter, but it is not only a quote-to-cash challenge. It is a pipeline-wide challenge. True executional flow means every step inherits context and reduces friction.
What does that look like?
- Reps capture deal context without switching tools
Notes aren’t lost in Slack. They’re tied to the opportunity, always visible. - Tasks inherit opportunity data automatically
Every follow-up carries context. No duplication. No guesswork. - Forecasting reflects real engagement, not hopeful assumptions
Numbers aren’t padded. They’re grounded in activity signals and stakeholder progress. - Performance insights drive specific actions, not vague suggestions
Managers don’t hear “your team needs to improve.” They hear “VP engagement increases close rates. That gets execs into the call.” - CRM hygiene is enforced at the point of entry
RevOps isn’t a janitorial function. Data quality is enforced as it’s created.
That’s throughput. Not just in quoting, but in every motion that leads there.
Beyond CPQ: Building the Better GTM Engine
This is the gap the Vocal article opens but does not close. CPQ is necessary, but it is not sufficient. At GTM Engine, we are not replacing CRM or CPQ. We are solving the pre-quote problem by ensuring execution happens in flow.
Reps spend less time switching tools. Managers see truth instead of noise. RevOps enforces hygiene by design, not by cleanup. Where the Vocal piece argued for throughput at quoting, we argue for throughput from the first touch to the handshake.
The Moment of Decision
Teams that get this right won’t just quote faster; they’ll qualify faster, engage better, and forecast more accurately. Teams that wait for CPQ to fix everything will be left wondering why their shiny new system didn’t save the quarter.
The Vocal blog makes an important point: handoffs kill speed. Throughput beats fragmentation. But here’s the extension. Throughput must start before quoting.
Velocity isn’t a sprint at the end of the pipeline. It’s the compound interest of clean execution across the entire GTM engine. From handoff to handshake, every motion matters.
About the Author
Dominic Cross is the Senior Vice President EMEA & Head of Partnerships at GTM Engine, a disruptive sales execution platform that turns every customer interaction into pipeline intelligence automatically. He is a GTM strategist and technology executive with 35 years of experience as a SaaS CRO and sales leader, scaling sales teams into new markets and building strategic partnerships across the tech sector.
Whether launching technology solutions into new GTM channels/geographies or building global sales teams to execute on the corporate growth strategy, Dominic leads with a commercial mindset with a focus on market penetration, scalable delivery, and long-term customer success.
His belief is simple. The best workforce solutions don’t just train, they accelerate GTM success.
