Qualify the job before the account
A promising workflow automation lead needs more than a company in the right sector. Confirm the job: the same customer information is retyped between forms, spreadsheets, and a CRM. Identify coordinators copying records between business applications as the possible user group, then find who can authorize a pilot; the working buyer hypothesis is an operations manager responsible for repeatable processes.
Ask about the current workaround, manual copy-and-paste supported by a checklist, and what would make changing it worthwhile. Do not assign a budget or procurement timeline from company size, funding, or job title alone.
Use a category-specific qualification rubric
Use the calculator below to organize your judgment after reading the source. Unknown evidence should remain unknown. Its weights are a transparent prioritization convention, not a prediction of purchase probability.
| Dimension | Evidence to seek | Reason to pause |
|---|---|---|
| Problem | What are the exact input, decision, and output of the last completed request? | The person cannot describe a recent instance of the problem. |
| Product fit | Can you automate one reversible data transfer with a visible failure queue? | processes whose required application has no supported access method |
| Timing | request volume has increased beyond one coordinator's capacity | The proposed change has no confirmed date or relevance. |
| Implementation | What should happen if the destination system rejects an update? | connector availability, retry behavior, and duplicate prevention must be demonstrated |
| Value | an approved sample request reaches the destination with its fields verified | The buyer and user disagree on what success looks like. |
Work through an illustrative assessment
Suppose the source says: “Every form submission needs three manual updates. Is there a reliable way to stop rekeying the same request?” That supports investigating the problem, but it does not yet settle purchasing authority or technical compatibility. A reviewer should ask the two discovery questions above and preserve the answers beside the source.
Compare that with: A broad discussion celebrates automation without identifying a repetitive task. This weaker example should not receive the same pain or timing score. A relevant public topic is not evidence of a current evaluation.
Even a strong problem signal should be rejected when the need belongs to processes whose required application has no supported access method. Qualifying out prevents a misleading promise and preserves time for a prospect the product can help.
Create a reviewable handoff
A qualified opportunity should contain the original evidence, a summary of the job, confirmed and unknown constraints, the buyer/user distinction, and an agreed next step. Keep a score attached to those facts so another teammate can challenge the conclusion.
Propose a pilot only when the critical gap is addressed: connector availability, retry behavior, and duplicate prevention must be demonstrated. Evaluate the pilot through a real observation that an approved sample request reaches the destination with its fields verified, and keep that observation separate from the initial qualification score.
About these playbooks and examples
Prepared by DemandBolt with AI assistance as practical planning resources for people building and selling software. The category scenarios and message examples are illustrative, not quotations from real prospects or claims of customer results. Adapt the hypotheses to your product, verify original sources, and review capabilities before making an offer.
The workflow follows our first-customer guide and buying-signal review method. Our PyInvesting and Rae records distinguish actual internal work from targets. Published .