A qualified enquiry matches your current offer closely enough to justify a specific next conversation. Define observable evidence of fit, need and decision context before assigning scores. Preserve an uncertainty category so incomplete information is investigated rather than silently treated as rejection.
Describe relevance using evidence you can observe
Start with your delivery boundary. List the situations you can support, the outcome your offer addresses and the conditions that make a request unsuitable today. Translate each into a question a colleague can answer from an enquiry or a short conversation. “Has a recent coordination problem involving several locations” is more useful than “looks like a high-quality lead”. Avoid treating a familiar company name as evidence of need.
Distinguish a user, an interested researcher, a supplier and a potential buyer. A corporate email address does not establish purchasing authority, while a personal address does not establish its absence. Collect only information needed for the decision. You may need to understand the approval process without storing unnecessary personal or sensitive details. Explain why a question matters when it might otherwise seem intrusive or disconnected from the customer’s request.
Use three states before a numerical score
Try fit, uncertain and outside current scope. Fit means the available evidence meets your stated criteria; uncertain means a material question remains; outside scope means a known boundary is not met. Add a reason and an appropriate next action. For example, uncertainty about the timing may justify an agreed later conversation, while an unsupported technical requirement may require a clear explanation rather than persistent pursuit.
Have two people independently classify a sample of recent enquiries. Compare the evidence they used, especially on borderline cases. If their decisions diverge, revise the wording before introducing weights. A score can be helpful for arranging follow-up, but a number will not repair ambiguous definitions. Keep a human route for correction when an enquiry contains unusual circumstances or when your initial information proves inaccurate.
Maintain the rule as the offer changes
Assign responsibility for reviewing criteria when delivery capability, pricing or target situations change. Preserve the rule version attached to earlier records so historical conversion figures remain interpretable. Otherwise an apparent improvement in qualification may simply reflect a stricter definition. Review a small sample of declined cases as well as accepted ones; incorrect exclusions are easy to miss when analysis only follows the sales queue.
When reporting, count qualified enquiries separately from completed sales and disclose unresolved classifications. Do not allow pressure for a larger pipeline to make fit criteria disappear. Equally, avoid using qualification to create an unexplained barrier for unfamiliar backgrounds or smaller organisations. SBA’s marketing planning material supports a defined audience and sales process; your qualification rubric should serve consistent conversations within that process rather than claim certainty about who will buy.
Check how colleagues explain an outside-scope decision to the enquirer. A concise, accurate boundary is more useful than quoting an opaque score. Where a reasonable alternative exists, offer it without implying an endorsement or sharing the person’s details without agreement. Keep the reason available for later review.
Fictional worked example
A fictional scenario to explain the method, not a customer result or a market benchmark.
Consider the fictional workflow company Dock Alder. Its team previously labelled every business-domain form submission as qualified. In a review, the sales coordinator and delivery lead find research requests, vendor pitches and customers asking for capabilities that are still being designed. They replace the domain rule with three questions: is there a current supported problem, is the requested scope deliverable and has a useful next conversation been accepted?
One enquiry from a small studio uses a personal email address but supplies a concrete workflow and an available decision maker. It becomes a fit case. Another from a large organisation remains uncertain because the requested integration is undefined. Dock Alder records what must be clarified rather than awarding points for the logo. This fictional comparison demonstrates why documented evidence is more useful than superficial signals.
TAKE THIS INTO YOUR NEXT CONVERSATION
A practical next-step checklist.
- Write current delivery boundaries as observable criteria.
- Separate fit, uncertainty and known non-fit.
- Compare two reviewers on the same recent sample.
- Version the rubric and allow classification corrections.
Common questions.
Should budget always be a mandatory first question?
Only if it is necessary for the next decision. You can explain a price range and clarify purchasing constraints without demanding private financial detail immediately.
When is a score worth adding?
Add one when the agreed criteria are consistent and the team needs a transparent way to order work. Retain the underlying reasons and an exception path.
Further reading & source context.
These primary references provide background. They are not evidence for the fictional example above and do not endorse AccelerateLink.
Found an error or a missing qualification? Send an editorial correction.
Find my next move.
Use a practical tool to turn this idea into a clearer starting point.
Find my next move