What the research says about running sales incentives

Plans change every year, so the machinery behind them matters. Alexander Group's 2026 survey found 97% of companies changed plans. About 65% need stronger governance and operations. Fewer than 25% had fully built success measurement and change management. WorldatWork's Workspan Daily reported both figures in July 2026.

The tools behind many plans are spreadsheets. Raymond Panko of the University of Hawaii studied audits of 54 spreadsheets. Computerworld reported the result. 49 of them, or 91%, had errors. A payout sheet is an operational spreadsheet. Each error reaches a rep's bank account.

India adds an audit angle. Section 143(3)(i) of the Companies Act 2013 covers it. Auditors report on internal financial controls. They state whether an adequate system is in place. They also report how well the controls operate. The ICAI guidance note sets out the method. Incentive payouts are an expense in the financial statements.

Sources: Alexander Group, 2026 Sales Compensation Trends Survey, hundreds of companies across 11 industries, and as reported by WorldatWork Workspan Daily, 16 July 2026, sample not disclosed · Panko spreadsheet audits, as reported by Computerworld, 24 May 2004, 54 spreadsheets, an older study of general business spreadsheets · ICAI, Guidance Note on Audit of Internal Financial Controls Over Financial Reporting, September 2015

Plans change yearly, governance lags, and payout errors reach the books.

‍

SPM vs ICM software: the question each one answers

Incentive compensation management, or ICM, software answers one question. Was everyone paid correctly, and can we show it? It covers calculation, crediting, approvals, audit, disputes and payout.

Sales performance management, or SPM, software asks a second question. Is the plan working, and can reps act on it? It adds targets, quotas, territories, analytics, coaching and nudges.

Gartner's 2026 research frames SPM the same way. SPM applications help sales operations leaders define territories and quotas. They also administer incentive plans that reward the right behaviors. In that framing, ICM is the core. SPM is the wider platform around it.

Without a sound ICM core, SPM shows reps numbers they doubt. An ICM tool alone pays correctly. It cannot tell leadership whether the plan moved sales.

ICM proves the payout, and SPM tests the plan.

‍

Which to buy first, by stage and industry

The answer depends on where errors and questions arise today. Four common situations follow.

1. Payouts run on spreadsheets. Buy the ICM core first. Fix calculation, crediting and audit before anything else. The usual steps sit in moving from Excel to incentive software.
2. Payouts are correct but late or disputed. Add rep visibility and query handling next. Reps who can see how each payout was built raise fewer questions.
3. Payouts are clean and leadership asks about return. Add the sales performance management (SPM) layer. Targets, territories, analytics and coaching now pay off.
4. A new plan, merger or new channel is coming. Buy both together on one data model. Two vendors means two versions of the truth.

Industry shifts the order too.

• Pharma. Large field forces and secondary sales make the ICM core urgent. Visibility follows fast, because medical representatives work alone.
• Banking and lending. Many products and cross-sell rules make crediting hard. Start with ICM, then add product-mix analytics.
• Insurance. Agency and bancassurance channels pay on premium and persistency. Clawbacks need a clean ledger first.
• FMCG. Distributor data arrives late. Start where the data is, often secondary sales, then add beat-level visibility.

Common payout faults are listed in commission calculation errors.

Fix the payout first, then improve the next plan.

‍

The integration and data questions a CIO should ask

Both layers live or die on data. A CIO weighing sales performance management (SPM) vs ICM software can ask seven questions.

1. Which systems does it read from: HRMS, CRM, SFA, DMS and ERP?
2. Does it connect to SAP without custom code?
3. Does each payout trace to its plan, KPI and source record?
4. Are plans and targets held as dated versions?
5. Who can change a rule, and is each change logged?
6. Where is the data hosted, and how is access controlled?
7. Can a recompute run without breaking a closed period?

The audit questions follow from Section 143(3)(i). Auditors test whether controls exist and work. For payouts, that means logged rule changes and approval trails. It also means traceable results. A spreadsheet rarely leaves that trail.

Data movement matters as much as hosting. See CRM to commission automation for the deal-to-payout steps.

Every payout should trace to its plan, KPI and source.

‍

Where AI changes each layer

AI does different work in each layer.

On the ICM side, AI explains and checks. It tells a rep why a payout came out as it did. It lets an admin trace a payout to the plan behind it. It drafts answers to payout queries. Fewer queries reach the incentive team.

On the sales performance management (SPM) side, AI coaches. It summarizes a team's standing for each manager. It writes an earnings summary for each rep. Generative scenario modeling is expected January to March 2027. It will test a plan change before launch.

The governance need does not shrink with AI. Alexander Group's survey found fewer than 25% had fully built success measurement. AI helps where rules and data are already clean.

AI explains payouts in ICM and guides action in SPM.

‍

How Kennect helps with both layers

Kennect is an AI-led sales performance and incentive compensation management platform. In the companies we work with, the ICM core usually comes first. So we built both layers on one data model.

The payout core. Our incentive compensation management software covers calculation, crediting, approvals and payout. Plans and targets carry dated versions. An audit trail and change log record each edit. Recompute and carry-forward handle late data. Our guide to incentive compensation management walks the payout chain.

Queries and disputes. Each rep question goes to an owner, with the answer logged. See query management.

The performance layer. Our sales performance management software adds target setting and leaderboards. Leadership gets a management cockpit. Reps get a personal cockpit, a slab view and a what-if simulator. Our guide to a sales performance management system covers the full loop.

Connectors. We read from the HRMS, CRM, SFA, DMS and SAP. Fill the white spaces, do not disrupt the foundation.

One mid-sized pharma deployment had 1,000+ medical representatives. Payout queries fell by 80%. That followed once reps could see how each payout was built. Close to payout fell to 5 days, from 2 to 3 months. The incentive team saved 200+ admin hours a month.

Source: Kennect claim register · mid-sized Indian pharma deployment, 1,000+ medical representatives · 80% fewer payout queries, close to payout in 5 days against 2 to 3 months, 200+ admin hours saved a month · reference build, 8 weeks from kickoff to first live payout

One data model lets the payout core and the performance layer agree.

‍

What this means for the 2027-28 plan

The plan year starts on 1 April 2027. Software chosen in November can be live before then. A reference build reaches its first live payout in 8 weeks.

Start with the question that hurts today. If payouts are disputed, start with ICM. If payouts are clean, add sales performance management (SPM). See how to manage sales incentives for a sequence.

Choose by the decision you need to support in April.

Read more on incentive compensation management, and how Kennect works for pharma, FMCG, banking and insurance.

‍