What the deficit is
Roughly 50% of GTM stakeholders disagree that RevOps effectively provides training, onboarding, and documentation support. The enablement deficit is the largest single weakness in current RevOps practice — the only one of the four Resources asset classes where a majority of stakeholders see ineffectiveness.
The deficit matters because enablement is the human-centred component of Resources. Data, systems, and processes can be implemented without deep human capability investment; enablement cannot. Without it, RevOps produces structural integration without the human capability to operate it effectively.
Why it has structural roots
RevOps teams typically over-index on analytical and technical talent and under-invest in learning and development. Enablement work — designing learning curricula, running capability programmes, developing field documentation — requires a different skill set than dashboard building or systems configuration. The skill imbalance produces a corresponding output imbalance.
The imbalance is not incidental. It is structurally driven by hiring preferences (analytical talent is easier to evaluate), measurement biases (analytical impact is easier to attribute), and capability framing (enablement is often classified as 'soft' rather than core to RevOps).
Specific executive action
Three actions close the deficit. First, require the RevOps function to report on team composition across the four specialisations — strategy/analytics, systems/data, process/programmes, enablement. Set headcount targets that explicitly balance the four.
Second, tie a portion of RevOps performance evaluation to measurable enablement outcomes: time-to-productivity for new hires, certification rates, capability assessment scores. Without measurement, the deficit is invisible and persists.
Third, frame enablement publicly as core RevOps capability, not optional add-on. The framing matters because it shapes what the team treats as legitimate work and what gets prioritised against ad-hoc requests.