| name | deal-risk-assessment |
| description | Assess deal health and risk factors for Talosix EDC opportunities, score deals across multiple dimensions, identify red flags, and recommend actions to improve pipeline forecast accuracy. |
Deal Risk Assessment
Purpose
Systematically evaluate the health of active deals in the Talosix sales pipeline. Identify risks early, recommend corrective actions, and improve forecast accuracy by replacing gut-feel assessments with structured analysis grounded in clinical trial EDC sales patterns.
When to Use
- Weekly pipeline review and deal inspection
- Before updating forecast commitments
- When a deal shows signs of stalling or going silent
- Before requesting executive involvement or resources
- Quarterly pipeline health assessments
Information Gathering
For each deal being assessed, collect:
- Opportunity Details - Deal name, prospect company, deal value, stage, close date
- Timeline - Days in current stage, total days in pipeline, original vs. current close date
- Stakeholders - Identified contacts, their roles, engagement level
- Activities - Recent meetings, emails, demos, evaluations
- Competitive Landscape - Known competitors, prospect's incumbent vendor
- Next Steps - Agreed-upon next action and date
- Champion Status - Who is the internal champion, how active are they
- Technical Evaluation - Status of any POC, pilot, or technical review
- Procurement - Status of legal/procurement engagement, MSA review
Scoring Framework
Score each deal across these dimensions on a 1-5 scale (1 = high risk, 5 = low risk):
1. Champion Strength (Weight: 25%)
| Score | Criteria |
|---|
| 5 | Active champion with decision authority, personally invested in Talosix winning |
| 4 | Strong advocate with influence, regularly provides internal intel |
| 3 | Supportive contact but limited influence or unclear decision authority |
| 2 | Contact is engaged but not actively championing internally |
| 1 | No identified champion, or champion has left/changed roles |
2. Decision Process Clarity (Weight: 20%)
| Score | Criteria |
|---|
| 5 | Full buying process mapped: decision makers, criteria, timeline, budget confirmed |
| 4 | Most elements known, one or two gaps |
| 3 | General understanding but key elements (budget, final approver) unclear |
| 2 | Vague process, prospect has not shared specifics |
| 1 | No visibility into decision process, single-threaded relationship |
3. Compelling Event (Weight: 20%)
| Score | Criteria |
|---|
| 5 | Hard deadline (study start date, contract expiry, regulatory requirement) driving urgency |
| 4 | Strong business driver with general timeline pressure |
| 3 | Acknowledged need but no specific deadline or consequence of delay |
| 2 | "Nice to have" evaluation, no urgency |
| 1 | No identified reason to change or act now |
4. Technical Fit (Weight: 15%)
| Score | Criteria |
|---|
| 5 | Requirements fully met, successful POC/pilot, technical team supportive |
| 4 | Strong fit with minor gaps easily addressed (configuration, roadmap items) |
| 3 | Good fit with some gaps requiring workarounds or custom development |
| 2 | Significant gaps, prospect has concerns about technical capability |
| 1 | Major requirement gaps, technical team has raised blockers |
5. Competitive Position (Weight: 10%)
| Score | Criteria |
|---|
| 5 | Sole source or strongly preferred, competitor eliminated |
| 4 | Leading position, clear advantages acknowledged by prospect |
| 3 | Competitive, no clear leader, evaluation ongoing |
| 2 | Behind a competitor, prospect leaning elsewhere |
| 1 | Incumbent advantage is strong, Talosix is the underdog with no clear differentiator |
6. Engagement Recency (Weight: 10%)
| Score | Criteria |
|---|
| 5 | Active engagement in last 7 days, next meeting scheduled |
| 4 | Contact within last 14 days, positive communication |
| 3 | Last meaningful contact 15-30 days ago |
| 2 | 30-60 days since meaningful engagement despite outreach |
| 1 | 60+ days of silence, emails/calls unanswered |
Overall Score Calculation
Deal Health Score = (Champion x 0.25) + (Decision Process x 0.20) +
(Compelling Event x 0.20) + (Technical Fit x 0.15) +
(Competitive Position x 0.10) + (Engagement x 0.10)
Score Interpretation
| Score Range | Rating | Forecast Category |
|---|
| 4.5 - 5.0 | Strong | Commit |
| 3.5 - 4.4 | Healthy | Best Case |
| 2.5 - 3.4 | At Risk | Pipeline |
| 1.5 - 2.4 | Troubled | Upside Only |
| 1.0 - 1.4 | Critical | Omit from Forecast |
Red Flags
Automatically flag deals exhibiting any of these patterns:
Immediate Action Required
- Ghost Champion - Champion has not responded in 14+ days
- Close Date Slippage - Close date pushed more than twice
- Single-Threaded - Only one contact engaged, no multi-stakeholder access
- No Next Step - No agreed-upon next action with a date
- Procurement Stall - Legal/procurement engaged but no progress in 21+ days
Warning Signs
- Expanding Evaluation - Prospect adds new competitors late in the process
- Stakeholder Turnover - Key contact leaves or changes roles during evaluation
- Scope Creep - Requirements expanding without corresponding budget discussion
- Delayed POC - Technical evaluation keeps getting postponed
- Budget Uncertainty - No budget confirmed or "still working on budget" after discovery
- Committee Decision - Decision shifted from individual to committee
- Unusual Silence After Demo - No follow-up questions after a demo (often means they're not serious or chose a competitor)
Clinical Trial EDC-Specific Red Flags
- Study Already Started - Prospect's study has already begun enrollment with another EDC (switching mid-study is rare)
- CRO Mandate - Prospect's CRO has a preferred/mandated EDC vendor
- Enterprise Agreement - Prospect has an enterprise license with incumbent that covers EDC
- Regulatory Filing Dependency - Prospect is mid-submission and reluctant to change systems
- Validation Concerns - IT/QA team has raised CSV burden as a significant concern
Recommended Actions by Risk Level
Strong (4.5-5.0)
- Maintain momentum, don't over-manage
- Prepare for contracting and implementation planning
- Ask champion to confirm timeline with procurement
- Schedule executive alignment meeting
Healthy (3.5-4.4)
- Address the lowest-scoring dimension specifically
- Expand stakeholder engagement to reduce single-thread risk
- Confirm compelling event and quantify cost of inaction
- Request access to procurement/legal to start MSA review
At Risk (2.5-3.4)
- Conduct an honest assessment of whether this deal is real
- Develop a champion or find a new one
- Create urgency through a time-bound offer or reference visit
- Involve sales leadership for strategy session
- Consider requesting an executive-to-executive meeting
Troubled (1.5-2.4)
- Escalate to sales leadership for go/no-go decision
- Reduce time investment unless a clear path to recovery exists
- Attempt a "pattern interrupt" (new stakeholder, new angle, executive outreach)
- Move to nurture if no improvement within 2 weeks
Critical (1.0-1.4)
- Remove from active forecast immediately
- Move to long-term nurture or close-lost
- Document lessons learned for similar future opportunities
- Redirect resources to healthier deals
Pipeline Forecast Methodology
Weighted Pipeline Calculation
Weighted Value = Deal Value x Stage Probability x (Health Score / 5)
Stage probabilities for clinical trial EDC sales:
| Stage | Base Probability |
|---|
| Qualification | 10% |
| Discovery Complete | 20% |
| Demo/Evaluation | 35% |
| POC/Pilot | 50% |
| Proposal Delivered | 60% |
| Negotiation | 75% |
| Verbal Commit | 90% |
| Closed Won | 100% |
Adjust base probability up or down by the health score ratio to get a more realistic weighted pipeline.
Output Format
Deliver deal risk assessments as:
- Individual Deal Scorecard - One-page scoring with dimension breakdown, red flags, and recommended actions
- Pipeline Risk Summary - Table of all active deals with scores, ratings, and top risk per deal
- Forecast Adjustment Recommendations - Which deals to move between forecast categories based on assessment
- Action Plan - Prioritized list of actions across the pipeline, sorted by deal value and urgency
