Process Design · Codified August 2026, in weekly use
Is this client real, is the scope right, can I actually deliver, is it worth the resource to chase. Done ad hoc, it was inconsistent and slow: the same posting could get a yes on Monday and a no on Thursday, depending on mood and time pressure, with no fixed standard behind the call.
I wrote it down as a two-track procedure: client and deal risk assessed separately from actual capability fit, checked against a verified record of what I've really done, with a hard rule to skip anything I can't honestly back up.
Client and deal risk (payment history, hire rate, review signal) is assessed separately from actual capability fit, checked against a verified record of real, demonstrated work. Any screening question I can't honestly back up is a hard skip, not a workaround. The decision, and the reasoning behind it, gets logged every time.
Since running it as a standing procedure, screening time is cut roughly in half, and close to half of what gets reviewed now earns an honest skip, which redirects effort to the opportunities I can actually win. The part that matters most: when a screening question would need me to overstate what I've done, the procedure won't draft around it. It asks for something real, or it tells me to walk away.
This is the exact shape of a services firm's lead-qualification and scoping workflow. If yours runs out of one person's head, I'd love to hear about it.
Schedule a 30-min Call
