How to use the Sales Territory Planning Tool.
Territories should reflect capacity and service constraints, not only account counts. Flag assignments that conflict with supplied ownership rules.
Make the workflow fit your task.
Group accounts according to the supplied ownership and service constraints, then allocate against actual representative capacity. Report unassigned work and conflicts rather than concealing them inside a balanced-looking territory map.
- What you provide
- Account list and supplied assignment constraints.
- What you get
- Proposed territory distribution and unresolved conflicts.
See the input and the result.
Illustrative input and output · a teaching example, not a live WebAct run
Example input
Assign accounts A01–A45 to representatives North and South, each with capacity for 20 accounts. No other ownership restrictions. Preserve an explicit unassigned list.
Completed example
North: A01–A20, 20 accounts. South: A21–A40, 20 accounts. Unassigned: A41–A45, 5 accounts. Capacity used: 40 of 40. Decision needed: add capacity or reprioritize five accounts; do not silently exceed either representative's limit.
Load this input into the prompt, then copy it to WebAct to try the task. Your result may differ from the illustration.
Decisions and troubleshooting.
Should equal account counts imply equal territories?
Not necessarily. Account complexity, travel or support demand can differ. Use the capacity measure relevant to the team's work.
Why does a balanced plan still overload one representative?
Inspect workload assumptions and existing commitments. Equal counts can hide unequal effort or unavailable capacity.
Try it with your own source.
Replace the example with your material in the task prompt. Keep the requirements you need, then copy the task into WebAct.
Customize and copy the task ↑