SDR Operations
Part of Sales development operations
Building a fair meeting qualification review
Review meeting decisions against the rule and evidence available at the time, with clear reasons, uncertainty and a correction path.
A fair meeting qualification review judges a proposed meeting against the rule in force when it was proposed and the evidence available then. It records a reason, allows uncertainty and gives the representative a way to correct a misread record. Later deal progress is a separate finding.
Agree on the question being reviewed
Define the rule with SDRs and the sales owners who receive meetings. One possible test is: Did the prospect express a relevant issue or question, was the current offer plausibly suitable, and did the proposed meeting have a purpose the prospect accepted?
Specify what must be known before booking. State which material unknowns may remain open for the discussion.
Use three review outcomes: meets the rule, does not meet the rule and insufficient evidence. Sparse notes may prevent a sound judgement; that calls for a record-quality check, not an assumption that the meeting was poor. A confirmed mismatch differs from an unanswered fit question.
Sample the range of decisions
Select held and unheld meetings, accepted and returned proposals, and some cases that ended in a justified stop. Include different account segments and receiving owners. Reviewing only unsuccessful opportunities would miss meetings that were sensible when proposed but later stopped for unrelated reasons.
For each case, show the prospect’s statement or request, the SDR’s interpretation, relevant offer conditions and the proposed purpose. Where practical, keep later opportunity outcomes out of the initial judgement. Have two reviewers apply the same rule to some of the same records, then discuss where their readings differ.
| Reviewer finding | Response |
|---|---|
| Rule met and the record supports it | Retain the decision, even if the later deal stopped. |
| Rule not met on facts known then | Record the unmet condition and a corrective action. |
| Evidence missing | Identify what needed recording; leave qualification unconfirmed. |
| Rule ambiguous | Clarify it with both teams and give the revision an effective date. |
Record reasons that can be corrected
“Low quality” is too vague. Specify whether the issue was no prospect-stated purpose, a confirmed service mismatch, wrong ownership, an unsupported inference or missing context. More than one reason may apply. Show the representative the evidence and permit a correction when a record was overlooked or misread.
Check whether reviewers are applying different thresholds or seeing different account mixes before using review results in an individual assessment. Do not apply a criterion retroactively. Keep someone responsible for any answer or meeting already promised to the prospect while the internal review proceeds.
If review notes contain personal information and the organisation is subject to the Australian Privacy Principles, reasonable steps are required to keep information used or disclosed accurate, up to date, complete and relevant to that purpose. Record only the context needed to explain the decision.
Close each case by retaining the decision, correcting the record, clarifying the rule or assigning a focused check, with an owner for the next action.
