Where We Push Back
Parent: Sales Methodology
Three workflow types where we redirect the prospect instead of building.
Decision-heavy
Symptoms: pricing tradeoffs, subcontractor selection, scope calls. The work is judgment, not pattern.
What we say: "The judgment stays with your team. But we automate the data, prep, and routing so the call lands in your hand with everything it needs."
Example: Bid selection for a $2M job. We don't pick the sub — but we can pull every sub's past bids, current capacity, change-order history, and put it in front of the decision-maker in one screen. The decision is theirs. The hours of prep are gone.
Low frequency
Symptoms: the workflow happens 1–2 times a month.
What we say: "On its own, that pays back too slowly to be worth a standalone build. But if it's part of a bigger workflow we're already building, it costs almost nothing to bolt on."
Example: Annual insurance renewal. As a standalone $25K build? No — payback is years. As a bolted-on feature inside their AP/AR automation? An extra 2-3 hours of dev work, no extra cost.
Process is broken
Symptoms: the workflow has fundamental issues — wrong steps, missing approvals, duplicate effort baked in.
What we say: "Automating a broken workflow just makes the wrong outcome faster. We can help — process design is part of the work. We'll find the most efficient version before we build."
Example: They route every PO through three approvers including someone who hasn't had decision authority for years. We don't build the 3-approver routing. We redesign with them to a 2-approver flow, then build that.
Why pushing back wins the deal
Saying no to bad-fit work is the highest-trust move we can make on a first call. It signals:
- We're not desperate
- We know the difference between automation and judgment
- We'll save them from spending $25K on the wrong thing
Most vendors would build whatever the prospect asks for. We'd rather lose a bad deal and earn the next three.
Last updated: 2026-05-24