Active Value Map

We examined several activation possibilities. We recommend a single one to start with.

Awaiting sponsor validation

First value to activate

Prepare a bid without starting from scratch

01
The data already exists
The CRM and the project archive hold much of what is needed. The quality of the links, the access and the operating rules all remain to be confirmed.
02
The loop fits an existing motion
The team already qualifies opportunities. We are not asking it to change method — we give it the context earlier.
03
The output is an action, not a report
Each pass produces a documented decision and a next action attached to someone.

See the prototype for this loop

What the loop connects

From scattered source to measurement

Every link is checkable: evidence points to its document, the decision to its author, the action to its owner.

01Scattered sources
02Context recovered
03Evidence linked
04Decision documented
05Next action
06Measurement

Read before the scores

These scores are illustrative, not a scientific rating. They exist to make the arbitration debatable, not to justify it with a calculation.

The five attributes examined

Revenue / economic potential

Can this priority produce plausible economic value?

Projects with an indicative value of €20,000 to €250,000
Ecodistribution €180,000 · MecaFlux €95,000 · Habitat Nord €75,000
Synthetic data — annual revenue remains undisclosed

Operational intensity

Does it contain enough searching, coordination or re-keying to justify an improvement?

Manual context search on every opportunity
Experts pulled in to find a comparable project
Preparation varies from person to person
Risk of starting from scratch when the expert is unavailable

Data readiness

Does the required data already exist, and is it accessible?

312 accounts · 1,240 contacts · 48 opportunities in the CRM
186 projects and 420 documents in the archive
Account ↔ project link to rebuild
The sources exist; their relationship needs strengthening

Tech stack fit

Can the loop slot into the existing stack without replacing the tools?

Existing CRM and existing archive
CRM name unknown
Access and integrations to confirm
No production integration within the Diagnostic

Operating model readiness

Can a business owner use it, validate it and maintain it?

Sales owner identifiable on every opportunity
Technical expertise available in house
Human validation indispensable
Exact governance and accountabilities to confirm

Comparison of the three possibilities

Comparison of the possibilities across the five attributes
Possibility	Revenue	Operational intensity	Data readiness	Tech stack fit	Operating model readiness	Verdict
APrepare a bid without starting from scratch	4/5	5/5	4/5	3/5	4/5	Recommended priority
BCapitalise on historical projects	3/5	4/5	3/5	3/5	3/5	Included in A, not separable
CQualify opportunities faster	3/5	3/5	4/5	4/5	2/5	Deferred: depends on unwritten rules

Prepare a bid without starting from scratch

The opportunities already exist in the CRM.
The evidence already exists in the project archive.
The loop fits a motion the team already performs every week.
The output is a documented decision and an action attached to someone.
Only the link between the two sources has to be built.

Capitalise on historical projects

Necessary, but produces no action on its own.
Capitalising with no point of use amounts to tidying without ever using it.
That is why it sits inside loop A rather than being treated separately.

Qualify opportunities faster

The data is available and technical feasibility is good.
But the qualification criteria are not written down (question Q3).
Automating an unformalised arbitration would freeze a rule nobody has validated.
To revisit once loop A is live and measured.

Diagnostic questions that fed this grid:Q-01— How long to recover context?Q-02— What makes a project comparable?Q-03— Who decides, and on what criteria?

The possibilities below were studied then set aside for this first loop. They are part of neither the prototype nor the Build scope.

Develop

Mobilise the relationships and opportunities already in place.

Surface the opportunities worth revisiting
Medium value · priority 4
Grow existing relationships
Medium value · priority 6

Capitalise

Reuse the projects, evidence and know-how already accumulated.

Reuse commercial proposals
Medium value · priority 5

Full prioritisation grid

Prioritisation of value possibilities
Priority	Possibility	Value	Data	Blocker	Owner	Metric	Status
1	Prepare a bid without starting from scratch	High	CRM + project archive	Account ↔ project link to rebuild	Sales management	Time to a documented decision	To validate
1	Surface the missing information	High	CRM + project archive	None	Sales management	Missing items per opportunity	To validate
2	Retrieve comparable projects	High	Project archive	Engagement type missing on part of the projects	Technical management	Share of opportunities with a comparable project identified	To validate
2	Qualify incoming opportunities	High	CRM + project archive	Qualification criteria not written down	Sales management	Share of opportunities qualified within 48h	To validate
3	Link evidence to context	High	Project archive	Irregular filing across years	Technical management	Share of recommendations with linked evidence	To validate
3	Decide whether to pursue	High	CRM + project archive	Decision not traced today	Sales management	Share of decisions documented	To validate
4	Surface the opportunities worth revisiting	Medium	CRM only	Incomplete activity history	Sales management	Opportunities requalified per month	To do
5	Reuse commercial proposals	Medium	Project archive	Duplicate versions never resolved	Technical management	Time to draft a proposal	To do
6	Grow existing relationships	Medium	CRM	No shared prioritisation rule	Sales management	Accounts active over 12 months	To do

Why this loop and not another

This loop already mobilises relationships, projects, know-how, decision and action.
It forms a first measurable scope without reducing the system to a single sales function.
Capitalising on projects and evidence is mandatory inside this first loop: without linked evidence, the recommendation cannot be used.

This map is a decision tool, not an inventory. We are not proposing nine projects: we recommend one, and we show you what we set aside to get there.

The retained loop, in detail

A mechanism, not a promise. Repeatability is what decides: a loop that does not repeat is not a loop.

Trigger: An opportunity, a consultation or a tender appears.
Decision: Pursue the bid, qualify it further, or set it aside.
Output: A contextualised action sheet: context recovered, evidence linked, missing information, next action and its owner.
Owner: Sales management
Observation period: 48 CRM opportunities observed over 12 months
Frequency: 24 estimated occurrences over 90 days Hypothesis
Repeatability: Plausible under conditionsTrigger and inputs are stable, but matching depends on project fields that are not yet normalised. Until they are, the loop works case by case.

Inputs

Account, contacts and sales history (SRC-CRM-01)
Delivered projects, proposals and reports (SRC-ARCH-01)
Sector, mission type and order of magnitude of the opportunity

Exceptions

No comparable project: the sheet goes out without evidence, as a weak match.
Account not linked: the match stays empty rather than guessed.
No owner: the loop stops before its output.

What remains to confirm

The real volume of occurrences over an observed quarter
Normalisation of the six project description fields
Current search time, never measured to date