The situation
A national consumer goods business had a field sales force spread across 20+ territories that had grown organically over years. Nobody had ever asked whether the boundaries still made sense. Some reps were driving hours to cover sparse rural areas while others had more customers than they could realistically visit. Target achievement hovered around 85%, and performance reviews had become arguments about geography rather than effort.
What I did
I pulled three years of sales, customer density, and travel data into one view. Then I measured true commercial potential by area, not just historical sales, because past performance often just reflected past territory design. I used clustering methods to test alternative structures that balanced workload with revenue opportunity, and classified each territory as either value-creating or value-draining based on whether the business was paying for selling time or travel time.
I presented leadership with three concrete options, each with clear trade-offs: fewer zones versus more balance, reduced travel versus broader coverage. No black-box recommendations, just evidence and choices.
What changed
The business moved to a simpler, designed structure. In the first full year, target attainment rose from 85% to just over 101%. Travel time dropped noticeably, and customer coverage became more consistent. Performance conversations finally focused on behaviour and delivery rather than postcode complaints.
Who this is for
If your territories are the result of history rather than design, and you suspect they're quietly working against your sales team, I can show you exactly where the friction is and help you rebuild them so your people compete on skill, not geography.