Your capability, your scale, your territories, the part of the pipeline you serve, even what you have decided not to chase — all of it changes what a good opportunity looks like. We build your definition first, then measure everything against it.
Every intelligence platform is built once and sold to everyone. You get a set of filters — phase, therapeutic area, geography, sponsor type — and you are expected to reconstruct your market out of somebody else's categories, every time you log in.
That works only if what makes a programme valuable to you happens to be one of those fields. It rarely is. The real determinants are nuance: the modalities you handle well, the scale of study where you are competitive, the regions where you are genuinely differentiated, the sponsor profile that buys the way you sell, the work you have deliberately chosen to leave alone.
None of that fits in a dropdown. So the tool hands back a generic market and calls it intelligence, and the vendor quietly assumes your business is the same shape as everyone else's.
What is a programme you would drop everything for, and why that one? Where do you win against larger competitors, and where do you lose to them? Which study profile is priced for you and which is not?
What has to be true before your service is even in scope? What looks promising on paper and never converts, and what is it about those you recognise too late?
Your answers become a written market definition — the rule. It is tested against programmes you already know: deals you won, deals you lost, opportunities that never materialised. If it cannot separate those three, it is not finished.
You keep it whether or not you continue with us. It is useful on its own, because most commercial teams have never had to write it down.
One consequence worth naming: this is why a second market is configuration rather than a rebuild. The instrument never changes. The rule does. A logistics provider measuring site geography and an imaging lab measuring central-read endpoints are running the same instrument against different lines.
Pick a company you know as well as anyone — an account you have worked for years, a competitor's client, a programme you have been tracking.
You get their programme count, where each one sits against comparable timelines, which are between studies, and what changed last quarter. Every line points at the record it came from, so you can check the answer against what you already know while we are still talking.
The fastest way to find out whether this is worth your time — in an hour rather than a quarter.
A commercial lead and a rep need different things from the same reading. Sending one document to both means one of them ignores it.
Opens with the read: what matters this month and why, with the reasoning shown rather than asserted. Then the programmes worth acting on, each with its evidence. Then everything else, grouped by why it ranked lower — because that reasoning is usually the more useful half, and it is where you tell us the chart needs redrawing.
One page per opportunity, written for a salesperson rather than a scientist. What the programme is in plain language. Why it needs your service, in a sentence they can say out loud. What they will be asked back. Where the conversation could go wrong. And how to pronounce the thing they are calling about.
One row per opportunity, mapped to standard task fields, uploaded by your admin. Re-uploading next month updates rather than duplicates. No API access, no security review, no IT project — a file goes in, a few answers come back.
We match sponsors to your accounts, so each item lands with the rep who already owns the relationship — in the tool they already live in, alongside their own activity.
Programmes that fit your chart at sponsors nobody on the team owns. No account manager, no history, no incumbent. Often the fastest thing on the list to act on.
Bring an account you know well and an opportunity you lost. Those two things tell us more about your market than any briefing document could.
Start a conversation Who is behind this