Illustrative case / not a real engagement
A professional services firm losing momentum between enquiry and proposal
Fictional 12-person firm with approximately £1.4 million annual turnover. The owner believes more marketing is needed because sales feel inconsistent. The Review asks whether the first constraint is lead volume, qualification or follow-up.
1. Scope and evidence
The example scope covers enquiry handling through to proposal decision. It does not assess every service line, marketing channel or delivery margin. In a real Review, figures would be checked against the client's accounts, questionnaire and source records before a conclusion is signed off.
- E1, supplied record: a fictional list of ten recent enquiries, with dates, owners and outcomes.
- E2, observed workflow: the fictional team demonstrates how it assigns enquiries and schedules follow-up.
- E3, owner statement: the owner believes marketing volume is the main constraint.
- Still to check: proposal contribution margin, source quality and reasons for losses. None can be inferred from enquiry counts alone.
2. What is happening now
In the fictional sample, four of ten enquiries have no recorded next action after the initial conversation [E1]. The team describes different follow-up habits and no shared rule for who owns an open proposal [E2]. The owner's concern about lead volume is plausible [E3], but these records do not establish that more leads are the best first investment.
3. Where work gets stuck and why it connects
The hand-off from first call to proposal has no named owner or review date [E1, E2]. That makes sales performance difficult to interpret: an unclosed opportunity may be a poor fit, a weak proposal or simply an opportunity nobody followed up. Marketing spend cannot be judged properly until those outcomes are recorded.
4. Findings and options
Finding: ownership is the first visible gap
Four records lack a next action [E1] and the team has no common follow-up rule [E2]. That is enough to test an ownership change. It is not enough to estimate lost profit.
Finding: marketing return remains uncertain
The present records do not connect enquiry source, proposal outcome and contribution margin [E1]. More marketing may still be useful, but this Review cannot recommend a larger budget yet.
Option A — buy more traffic now: quickest route to more enquiries, with a risk of sending more people into the same hand-off gap.
Option B — run a four-week follow-up trial first: slower to expand lead volume, but creates evidence on response, ownership and outcomes at low cost. This is the recommended first step [E1, E2].
Option C — commission a full CRM rebuild: may help later, but is disproportionate before the team agrees and uses a simple next-action rule.
5. Priorities, measures and possible value
- Sales lead: assign an owner and next-action date to every open enquiry. First measure: share of enquiries with both fields completed [E1, E2].
- Owner and sales lead: review ten recent outcomes and record loss reasons. First measure: proportion with a verified decision, not a guessed reason [E1].
- Marketing lead: connect enquiry source to qualified opportunities and contribution. First measure: source and margin coverage in the reviewed sample [E1].
Value status: unproven. For illustration only, one additional £20,000 sale at an assumed 30% contribution margin would represent £6,000 before any further costs. The current evidence has neither a checked margin nor a causal link to the proposed follow-up change. The next step is to verify both; this scenario is not delivered value or a forecast.
6. Four-week action plan
- Week 1 / sales lead: add owner and next-action fields to the existing enquiry list. Check ten current records for completeness.
- Week 2 / sales lead: hold a 20-minute open-opportunity review. Check whether each overdue action has a decision or new date.
- Week 3 / owner: review loss reasons and direct contribution on available closed proposals. Record missing information rather than filling gaps with estimates.
- Week 4 / owner and marketing lead: compare qualified enquiries, proposal outcomes and capacity. Decide whether the next investment belongs in follow-up, messaging or acquisition.
7. Recommendation and client check
Recommendation: client-led trial. The fictional team can test this change using its current tools. A paid implementation programme is not justified by the evidence yet. Revisit that decision if the trial identifies a wider process or systems problem the team cannot deliver alone.
Before finalising a real report, I would ask the client to correct any account of the workflow or records they disagree with, confirm who owns each action and mark any unresolved question for a later check.