Last month, a Head of RevOps at a Manchester fintech showed me their commission tracking system. Seventeen spreadsheets. Three people spending Friday afternoons reconciling numbers. Sales reps still asking “where’s my money?” by Wednesday.
The SPM conversation has shifted. Companies scaling across the UK no longer ask whether to modernise their commission infrastructure—they’re asking how fast they can move without breaking what works. Platforms like Qobra are emerging as the answer for teams tired of spreadsheet archaeology. This matters because the gap between legacy tracking and modern sales performance management is widening faster than most RevOps leaders anticipated.
SPM 2026 in 60 seconds
- The SPM market hits £2.4 billion in 2025, growing 17% annually—legacy approaches cannot keep pace
- Three capabilities matter: real-time rep visibility, no-code plan configuration, native CRM integration
- RevOps-Finance alignment delays implementations by 3-4 months more often than technology issues
- Companies reporting 10-20% sales productivity gains invest in RevOps automation first
The SPM reality check: why 2024’s approach won’t survive 2026
Working with RevOps teams, I’ve noticed a pattern. The spreadsheet started as a “temporary fix.” Then someone built a formula. Then someone else added a tab. Now Finance owns version 47, Sales trusts version 43, and nobody knows which one payroll actually uses.
17.43%
annual SPM market growth through 2030
According to Mordor Intelligence market analysis 2025, the SPM market reaches £2.4 billion this year, projected to hit £5.3 billion by 2030. That growth reflects something I see constantly: organisations finally admitting their commission processes cannot scale.
The numbers tell part of the story. Commission benchmarks analysis from Visdum shows 71% of companies now use pay-for-performance models. Yet most still calculate those commissions manually. That disconnect creates the disputes eating your Friday afternoons.
Here’s my frustration: sales turnover runs at 35%—triple the average across industries. Every time someone leaves, institutional knowledge about “how we actually calculate that accelerator” walks out the door. The implementations I’ve supported show this knowledge loss costing more than the commission errors themselves.
Three capabilities separating modern SPM from legacy tracking
Forget the feature comparison matrices. Most SPM vendors list forty capabilities. Maybe five actually matter for a scaling UK business. I consistently advise focusing on three before considering anything else.
Three capabilities worth prioritising
-
Real-time rep visibility
Sales reps checking their own earnings without asking Finance. Mobile access. Live attainment dashboards. This alone reduces commission queries by roughly 70% in my experience.
-
No-code plan configuration
RevOps should modify accelerators without waiting for IT. Business users building rules. If changing a threshold requires a developer, you’ve bought the wrong tool.
-
Native CRM integration
Salesforce, HubSpot, whatever you run—commissions calculated automatically from closed deals. No CSV exports. No manual matching. The data flows or the system fails.
According to RevOps productivity data from Qwilr, companies investing in RevOps automation report 10-20% increases in sales productivity. That figure comes from Boston Consulting Group research, and it aligns with what I observe across implementations. The productivity gain comes not from working harder but from eliminating the manual data cleansing that consumes RevOps capacity.
The most common mistake I encounter? Buying a comprehensive platform then using it as a fancy spreadsheet. Teams implement the tool without rethinking the process. For deeper context on structuring compensation plans before selecting technology, the principles of sales compensation governance provide a useful foundation.
How Qobra transforms commission management for scaling teams
The fragmented data problem sits at the heart of most commission nightmares. CRM holds deal information. HRIS holds rep territories. ERP holds payout history. Finance builds spreadsheets trying to connect them. Qobra eliminates that fragmentation by design.
Qobra’s approach to commission transparency
Variable compensation software built for RevOps and Finance teams. No-code automation for commission rules. Native integrations with CRM, HRIS, and ERP systems. Real-time tracking accessible via mobile for sales teams. Transparent calculations with request and approval workflows.
The technical architecture matters here. Qobra centralises commission data through native connections rather than scheduled exports. That means a deal closing in Salesforce at 4pm appears in commission calculations immediately—not after someone runs Monday morning’s reconciliation process.
For scaling teams, the no-code configuration proves critical. Compensation plans evolve quarterly in fast-growing organisations. Adding a new product line, adjusting territory splits, introducing accelerators for strategic deals—Qobra enables RevOps to make these changes without developer involvement. The reporting and analytics layer then shows exactly how plan modifications affect behaviour and costs.
Mobile access changes rep behaviour. When salespeople can check their attainment and projected earnings from their phone, the “shadow accounting” spreadsheets disappear. Reps stop building their own tracking systems. Finance stops fielding calculation questions. That visibility creates trust in the compensation process itself.
Implementation pitfalls I’ve watched teams repeat
In my experience implementing SPM solutions across UK mid-market firms (roughly 15-20 projects annually since 2022), the most common bottleneck isn’t technology—it’s misalignment between RevOps and Finance on commission logic. This regularly adds 3-4 months to implementation timelines.
The RevOps-Finance alignment trap
Technology selection typically takes 6-8 weeks. Getting Finance and RevOps to agree on how accelerators should calculate? I’ve seen that conversation extend past four months. Start alignment discussions before evaluating vendors.
The second pattern: underestimating change management. Sales reps have built workarounds over years. They trust their personal spreadsheets more than any new system. The implementations I’ve supported show adoption suffering when teams don’t invest in rep communication and training.
I advised a Head of RevOps at a 200-person London fintech last year. Commission disputes consumed 15+ hours weekly across Finance and Sales. Legacy spreadsheet tracking offered no audit trail. Within the first quarter of implementing automated commission calculation, disputes dropped by 80%. The technology worked. But the real success came from Finance and RevOps defining commission logic together before selecting the platform.
According to commission software implementation timeline data from Monday.com, the average payback period runs 8.9 months. That assumes implementation goes smoothly. Add alignment delays and the payback extends accordingly.
SPM implementation readiness check
-
Document current commission calculation logic in writing—not in spreadsheets
-
Identify where Finance and RevOps interpretations differ
-
Map data sources: which system holds truth for deals, territories, quotas
-
Estimate weekly hours currently spent on commission disputes
-
Define success metrics before vendor conversations begin
Your SPM questions answered
How long does SPM implementation typically take?
For mid-market UK companies, expect 12-20 weeks from vendor selection to full rollout. The technology deployment often takes 6-8 weeks. The remaining time goes to commission logic documentation, Finance-RevOps alignment, and user training. Complex multi-territory structures extend timelines.
What integrations matter most for SPM platforms?
CRM integration is non-negotiable—Salesforce or HubSpot connectivity determines whether commissions calculate automatically. HRIS integration enables territory and role-based rules. ERP integration matters for payroll synchronisation. Prioritise native integrations over generic API connections where possible.
Should we fix compensation plans before implementing SPM software?
Document existing plans thoroughly—yes. Redesign them completely—not necessarily. Modern SPM platforms handle complexity. The risk comes from implementing a tool without understanding your current logic. Fix the documentation first; the platform then reveals which plan elements create unnecessary complexity.
How do we measure SPM implementation success?
Track dispute volume and resolution time—these should drop significantly. Measure Finance hours spent on commission calculations weekly. Survey sales rep trust in commission accuracy before and after. The 8.9-month average payback period provides a financial benchmark, though operational improvements often appear sooner.
Your next move
The organisations modernising SPM successfully share one trait: they treat commission infrastructure as strategic, not administrative. Qobra and similar platforms provide the technology. The harder work involves documenting what you actually pay today, aligning Finance and RevOps on commission logic, and preparing reps for transparency they’ve never experienced.
Start with the commission audit. Map every plan variation currently running. Identify where calculations happen in spreadsheets versus systems. That exercise alone typically reveals complexity worth eliminating before any technology decision.