TL;DR: A 45-person management consultancy in Sydney submits around 120 proposals a year and wins 38 of them. Every outcome is recorded in the CRM with a loss reason selected from a dropdown. Last year 51 of 82 losses were logged as "price". Formal debriefs happened on 11 of those losses, all of them over AUD $500,000, usually two months after the decision. Of the 11 clients actually asked, two said price. The others named the delivery team, the absence of sector proof, or the timeline. Acting on the dropdown, the partners cut fees roughly 8% across two quarters. That gave away AUD $544,000 on won work and the win rate did not move. We designed a four-stage agent that assembles the pursuit file on every outcome, drafts a debrief request within two weeks, separates the stated reason from the evidenced one, and surfaces patterns by sector, partner and competitor. Running cost: AUD $71 to $145 per month.
The Dropdown
The proposal goes out on a Thursday. Six weeks later a procurement officer emails to say the client has decided to go another way, thanks the firm for its time, and wishes them well on future opportunities.
Priya, who runs business development, opens the opportunity record in the CRM and marks it Closed Lost. The next field is mandatory: Reason. The dropdown offers six options. Price, Timing, Capability, Incumbent, No Decision, Other.
The procurement email did not give a reason. It never does. So Priya thinks about what she knows. The firm's day rate is above two of the three competitors it usually meets. The client asked twice about fee structure. She selects Price, because it is the most plausible thing on a list of six, and because Other is what people select when they have not thought about it.
She does this eighty-two times a year.
At the annual partner retreat, the business development pack shows that 62% of losses were on price. Nobody built that number dishonestly. It came out of a mandatory field, filled in by a diligent person, aggregated by a spreadsheet that did exactly what it was asked.
The partners discussed it for forty minutes and agreed to sharpen pricing on competitive pursuits. Over the following two quarters the average fee on won work fell about 8%.
The win rate went from 32% to 32%.
The following year a new partner, who had run win/loss reviews at a larger firm, asked whether anyone had actually spoken to the clients who said no. Eleven had been asked, all on losses above AUD $500,000, usually about two months after the decision when the partner remembered.
She read the eleven debriefs. Two mentioned price. Four said the proposal named a delivery team the client never met, and they had no confidence the senior people would still be on the job in month three. Three said the firm showed no evidence of work in their sector. Two said the timeline was longer than a competitor's.
This is, when stated precisely, a business intelligence system whose primary input is one person's guess, whose validation step is a spreadsheet counting the guesses, and whose output was a decision to give away AUD $544,000. Priya did not invent the reasons. She was asked a mandatory question that nobody had given her a way to answer.
The Firm
Management consultancy in Sydney, New South Wales. Forty-five people: 6 partners, 12 senior consultants, 18 consultants, 5 analysts, 4 business services. AUD $14.2M annual revenue. Work is split between operational improvement, technology advisory and post-merger integration, weighted toward mid-market clients in financial services, healthcare and public sector.
Proposals submitted last year: 120. Average proposed value AUD $186,000. Won: 38. Win rate 31.7%, which has been between 30% and 34% for four years.
Debriefs conducted: 11 of 82 losses, all above AUD $500,000, at a median of 58 days after the decision. Every one was arranged by a partner who remembered to ask, in a conversation that was not recorded and produced notes in three cases out of eleven.
Time spent on the annual win/loss review: two analysts for roughly three weeks pulling records together, then a 40-minute discussion at the retreat. At a loaded analyst cost of AUD $62 per hour, that is about AUD $14,880 a year spent aggregating a field nobody trusts.
The 8% fee reduction applied to AUD $6.8M of won work over two quarters: AUD $544,000. The win rate did not move, which is the part worth sitting with. The firm paid half a million dollars to test a hypothesis it could have tested by making eleven phone calls.
One further number surfaced when the new partner counted manually. Across two years, 14 losses went to the same competitor, concentrated in healthcare. Nothing in the CRM would have shown that, because the competitor field was free text and had been filled in on 31% of records.
The pattern behind all of it: a system that records outcomes faithfully and captures reasons by inference.
The design is next. The design, the build guide, the running costs and the take-away are free to subscribers. Enter your email below and the rest of this Blueprint opens. New ones arrive every Tuesday and Friday.
