Mind the Gap: Why B2B Tech Needs Better Thinking, Not Just More Tools

I recently sat down with Ian Truscott on The Rockstar CMO Show to dig into something that’s been front of mind for me for years: the gap between technology’s potential and the actual value teams capture from it in B2B tech, marketing and go-to-market.

It’s a gap I see again and again — in the companies I advise, in my own work with Radiate B2B, and in conversations with leaders trying to make sense of AI, martech stacks, intent data and customer behaviour.

This post is an attempt to turn that conversation into a coherent framework you can actually use: why the gap exists, what it looks like in practice, and how to close it.

The gap isn’t new — but it’s wider now

When people talk about the gap, they often mean:

“We have all these tools but we’re not seeing the results we expected.”

That’s true — but it’s incomplete.

The real gap isn’t between tools and outcomes. It’s between:

• What technology enables
• What teams are actually set up to do with it

You can buy the fanciest stack, invest in intent data, deploy automation and adopt AI — and still see minimal impact if the organisation isn’t structured to absorb and act on those capabilities.

That’s why two companies with nearly identical tech stacks can see radically different results: one moves the needle; the other spins its wheels.

Where the gap shows up in B2B

1. Between signals and decisions

A lot of tech promises access to signals:

• intent data shows who’s researching
• CRM shows who’s engaging
• analytics shows where attention goes
• AI suggests patterns you might not see

But signals alone don’t make decisions. People do.

The gap here is that teams often treat signals as metrics to report, rather than triggers for action.

Real value comes when:

• You use signals to change who you call next
• You sequence outreach based on real buyer behaviour
• You adapt campaigns based on what’s actually emerging

That requires decision frameworks — not dashboards.

2. Between marketing and sales systems

There’s a persistent myth that marketing and sales are misaligned because of organisational structures.

They’re misaligned because they measure different things.

Marketing often optimises for:

• volume
• reach
• impressions
• MQLs

Meanwhile, sales optimises for:

• conversations
• pipeline progression
• share of wallet

If those measurement systems don’t talk to each other, you get two teams that feel misaligned even when they’re trying to solve the same underlying problem.

Closing the gap means:

• defining shared outcomes
• agreeing on common trigger events
• building systems that serve both perspectives

That’s how you turn “marketing noise” into “sales readiness”.

3. Between complexity and clarity

This is one I talk about a lot:

Complexity is easy. Clarity is hard.

New tools, dashboards, connectors and automations add complexity. But complexity without clarity just creates shadows.

Teams often think they need more data, more charts, more models.

What they actually need is:

• simpler decision rules
• tighter definitions of what “progress” looks like
• fewer but better-defined workflows

Clarity is an operational discipline, not a technology feature. Without it, tech adds clutter, not value.

Where AI fits in (and where it doesn’t)

AI is the hot topic right now — and for good reason: it’s powerful.

But it doesn’t solve the gap automatically.

AI amplifies whatever your underlying system is.

If your system is muddled:

• AI makes muddled thinking faster
• AI makes noise more pervasive
• AI makes bad decisions happen sooner

If your system is clear:

• AI highlights patterns you’d otherwise miss
• AI accelerates analysis and execution
• AI nudges decisions earlier in the cycle

This is a crucial distinction most teams miss.

AI is not a substitute for decision frameworks. It is a multiplier of whatever framework you have.

So before asking “what tool should we adopt,” ask:

What decision are we trying to improve?

Design the decision first. Then pick the tool that helps you make it.

A simple operating model to close the gap

From the podcast and years of observing teams, I use a simple mental model for closing the gap:

Step 1: Define the decision you care about

Not the metric. The decision.

Examples:

• Which accounts should we contact this week?
• Which personas should see the next campaign?
• Which narrative is resonating with buying committees right now?

Define these first.

Step 2: Choose signals that feed the decision

Not signals that are “interesting.”

Questions to use as tests:

• Does this signal change what we do next?
• Does this signal map to behaviour we’ve seen close deals?
• Does this signal sharpen our focus rather than widen it?

If the answer is no, rethink the signal.

Step 3: Build a simple rhythm (not dashboards)

You need a process, not a report.

Examples:

• Weekly alignment between sales and marketing on which accounts are warming up
• Quarterly narrative reviews based on behaviour clusters
• Monthly prioritisation based on intent patterns

This rhythm becomes the operating system of your go-to-market.

Tech supports this rhythm — it doesn’t define it.

Step 4: Evaluate outcomes, not outputs

Outputs are things like:

• impressions
• sessions
• email opens

Outcomes are:

• meetings booked
• pipeline generated
• deals accelerated
• churn prevented

Always tie tech back to outcomes.

If your stack isn’t serving outcomes, it’s acting as a cost centre, not a value driver.

Why this matters now

The last few years have thrown a lot at B2B teams:

• extended buying cycles
• more stakeholders
• more silent research (the Dark Funnel)
• increased expectations around personalisation
• AI entering every workflow

The temptation is to chase new tools to solve these problems.

But chasing tools without frameworks is what widens the gap.

The real frontier isn’t the technology itself. It’s how organisations:

• think about the decisions they need to make
• align their teams around those decisions
• design systems (tech + process + people) that support them

That’s the heart of closing the gap.

And that’s what I discussed with Ian — not abstract hype, but a practical way of seeing the world that helps you build better go-to-market systems.

Final thought

If there’s one thing I hope people take away from conversations like this, it’s this:

Value is created not by the tech you own, but by the decisions your team makes because of it.

Tools are powerful. But they are amplifiers of your thinking, not replacements for it.

Keep that simple idea in mind and everything else — your stack, your processes, your teams — starts to align in a way that actually moves the business forward.