Internal · Do Not ShareProcess Discovery Sales Playbookv1 · 10 July 2026
Process Discovery · Sales Enablement
How to sell the co-design.
The pitch, the demo order, the objections with counters that have worked in real calls, the ROI math for defending €50K, the design-partner qualification funnel, and the deal mechanics. Pairs with process-discovery-product-brochure.html and process-discovery-design-partner-offer.html.
The one thing to remember
Lead with process intelligence, never with agents. If you open with “AI agents,” you get compared to every automation platform on the market. Open with the ontology and the cockpit — “here is what we understand about your company” — and let the prospect pull you toward automation. This is exactly how the Prudential call turned: the excitement started when the intelligence layer came on screen, not before.
#01 · The pitch in 30 seconds
Every enterprise wants to layer AI into its operations, and almost none of them can say precisely how their work is done today. That knowledge lives in people’s heads, not in systems. We interview your people with AI, watch the real work happen, and build a living map of your operations — with an ROI-ranked list of what to automate first and blueprints your engineers can build from immediately. No integrations to start. First automation live during the engagement.
Position
We are the intelligence layer that tells an enterprise where AI can actually be applied. Not an RPA vendor, not a consulting study, not a mining tool that needs a year of connectors.
Language discipline
Say this
“Process discovery” / “process intelligence”
Avoid “process mining” as a self-description — mining means reading system logs (Celonis territory), and it drags the conversation into a comparison we don’t want. Use “mining” only to describe what they already have.
Sequence this
Intelligence, then execution
Agents are the execution layer, mentioned after the intelligence story, never before it.
Internal · Do Not ShareProcess Discovery Sales PlaybookThe demo playbook
#02 · The demo playbook
Demo link: process-mining-demo.pages.dev. Four screens, in this order. Show, pause, let them react — the Prudential call worked because we “did not frame much, just opened the prototype and noticed what was most exciting to him.” The arc: zoom from the whole company to one process, hand over the blueprint, end on the business case.
1
Architects lean in
The whole organisation · Ontology
“Here is what we understand about your organisation.” The full map: processes, systems, KPIs, teams, all connected. Point at the plain-English query bar. This is the screen a technical executive has never seen before — give it air time. If they lean in here, the deal is alive.
2
Process owners lean in
One process · Process canvas
“And here is one process, made visible.” Steps, decision points, the human review gate — and the evidence-backed confidence on every step. The message: we always know what we understand and what we don’t. “Here’s what we understand” was the exact moment the Prudential architect called it powerful.
3
Engineers lean in
The blueprint · Runbook
“This is what your engineers get.” The operating knowledge in plain language plus training and test cases. One line: “not a report — a package an AI agent learns from and is graded against.” Keep this screen short unless the audience is technical.
4
Executives lean in — end here
The decision · Cockpit
“And this is how leadership decides what’s next.” Value vs. effort, projected savings, payback, owners. End here — it’s the screen that turns a technical demo into a business case, and it was rated the strongest part of the Prudential call.
Roadmap disclaimer — do not promise
Simulations, shadow runs, document-upload context, and the human review/approval flow are roadmap, not shipped. Frame them as “where this is going, and as a design partner you shape it.” Everything in the four screens above is safe to show and claim.
Internal · Do Not ShareProcess Discovery Sales PlaybookObjections & counters (1/2)
#03 · Objections and counters
The first two happened verbatim in the Prudential call — and the counters below are what actually turned them.
“Aren’t you basically UiPath / RPA with AI on top?”
Comes up the moment you say “we understand existing processes.” The Prudential architect said it out loud: “I’m mapping you in my head to UiPath.”
- Don’t argue with the comparison — redirect the frame: UiPath overlays AI onto an automation construct. We are the intelligence layer above all of that: we tell you where AI is worth applying at all.
- His words after the reframe: “That story is much more interesting than where you started.” Use the ontology screen to make the difference visible instead of verbal.
“We already invested in Celonis / process mining.”
Most large enterprises have a mining tool and don’t want to admit it underdelivered.
- Agree — and reposition: that investment isn’t wasted. Mining shows what systems log; it misses everything that happens between systems and in people’s heads.
- We are the discovery and context layer that feeds it: their mining data can flow into our cockpit and finally become automation decisions. The Prudential architect’s own point: existing mining tools “are not really built for integration with agents.”
- Mining tells you a claim sat open for 50 days. We tell you why — the manual back-and-forth — and what automating it is worth.
“If we’re design partners shaping your product, why are we paying €50K?”
Fair challenge — the answer is what the money buys, not the discount.
- The fee buys outcomes, not access: ten processes with ROI analysis, three deep maps, one automation running live. That alone replaces a consulting engagement that costs more and delivers a PDF.
- Comparable process-intelligence platforms sell to enterprises at six-figure annual contracts. €50K fixed, with the product shaped around you, is the partner deal — and it ends when the product is finished.
- Skin in the game keeps both sides serious: paying partners get prioritised, and their feedback carries weight on the roadmap.
Internal · Do Not ShareProcess Discovery Sales PlaybookObjections (2/2) & battlecards
#03 · Objections and counters — continued
Objection
“Does our data go to OpenAI?”
Will come from IT security and, in Germany, the works council. Answer factually: data is processed via enterprise AI APIs under DPAs, with access controls so employees and the AI only see what the mapped process needs — sensitive fields stay hidden. A private deployment option exists for sensitive environments. Then hand over, don’t improvise: “send me your security checklist and you’ll have written answers.”
Objection
“Why not wait until it’s finished?”
The partner price and roadmap influence exist only now. Later they buy a finished product, at full price, shaped by someone else’s processes. Waiting costs the savings too: every quarter their top processes run unmapped is measurable money — use the ROI math (p.6).
Objection
“Our people have no time.”
Total ask: three process owners × one hour a week, a 30-minute check-in, one leadership session. Under four hours of company time weekly. Compare against workshop-based documentation projects that consume entire teams for months and go stale immediately.
#04 · Battlecards
The three names you will actually hear in deals. Never open by attacking them — acknowledge what they are good at, then place us on a different layer. Wedges are v1: validated at positioning level, sharpen them with what you hear live.
Positioning grid — horizontal axis: how the process knowledge gets in (integration-first vs. interview-first). Vertical axis: whether the engagement ends in insight only or includes execution.
Integration-first
Interview-first
Insight
only
Celonis
Logs in, dashboards out.
Consultancies
People in, slides out.
Execution
included
Klarity
Maps + recommendations — captures via both integration and interview.
Beam
Interviews in, running agents out — the empty quadrant the argument rests on.
Klarity’s capture motion spans both entry modes; grid placement above is directional, not a precise fourth axis.
Internal · Do Not ShareProcess Discovery Sales PlaybookBattlecards — Celonis & Klarity
#04 · Battlecards
Celonis
Log-based process mining
The process mining market leader. Reads event logs from SAP/ERP/CRM systems to reconstruct and analyse process flows. Many large enterprises already own it.
Where they’re strong
Brand and analyst standing, deep SAP integration, solid when the process lives inside well-instrumented systems that log every step.
Where we win
They only see what systems log — decisions, workarounds and cross-system work are invisible. Integration takes months before the first insight. Output is analysis; automation is still someone else’s project. Not built to feed agents.
“Celonis tells you a claim sat open for 50 days. We tell you why — and hand your engineers the blueprint to fix it. If you already run Celonis, that data can feed our cockpit. Nothing is wasted.”
Plant this question: “How do they capture the process knowledge that never hits an event log? And how long did integration take before you saw the first insight?”
If the prospect is happy with Celonis, don’t fight it — sell the discovery + agent layer on top. The complement story closes; the replacement story stalls.
Klarity
Closest direct competitor
US platform, “Transforming Transformation.” Captures processes from screen recordings, videos and AI interviews, builds a process map (“context graph”), and recommends improvements with ROI estimates. Marquee logos: DoorDash, Stripe, ServiceNow.
Where they’re strong
Nearly identical capture motion (AI interviews + screen recording), fast SOP generation at scale, strong US enterprise logos, deep finance & accounting heritage.
Where we win
Their engagement ends in a map and recommendations; ours ends in a running agent. Runbooks carry training and test data into Beam’s own agent platform — discovery and execution are one motion, no handoff. Plus European enterprise fit: private deployment, granular data controls, works-council-aware delivery.
“Mapping is where they stop. It’s where we start — the first process is running on AI before the engagement ends, on the same platform that mapped it.”
Plant this question: “After their analysis, who builds and operates the automation — and on whose platform does it run?”
Their site also claims agent-building. Expect that counter; hold the line on native execution — our agent platform is the product, not a service bolted on. Validate this wedge in the first live deal against them.
Internal · Do Not ShareProcess Discovery Sales PlaybookBattlecards close & ROI math
Consultancies
Accenture, Big 4, boutiques
People-powered process documentation and AI transformation programmes. Often already inside the account with board-level trust.
Where they’re strong
Executive relationships, delivery capacity, industry benchmarks, and the safety of a name nobody gets fired for hiring.
Where we win
Speed and cost: weeks and €50K versus months and seven figures. And permanence — consultant knowledge leaves with the consultants; our map lives in the client’s hands and keeps updating. A deck describes the work; our twin runs it.
“A consultancy rents you analysts. We leave you a living map your own team operates — with the first automation already running when we’re done.”
Plant this question: “When the engagement ends, where does the process knowledge live? And what does it cost to keep the deck current next year?”
Consultancies can also be channel, not competition — if the prospect’s consultancy is in the room, position us as the tool their programme runs on.
#05 · ROI math for defending €50K
Anchor on their numbers, not ours. The pattern from the Prudential call: pick one process they know is slow, quantify the delay, price the delay.
Worked example — receivables (the one that landed at Prudential)
~50 days
Invoices sit open today
10–20 days
Realistic reduction once understood & automated
€270K–550K
Cash freed, on €10M annual receivables
€50K
Engagement cost, fixed
Reusable phrasing — the architect’s own words: “If we can reduce it by ten or even twenty days, that has real cash value to the business.” The €10M figure is illustrative — always swap in the prospect’s own volume. Cash-freed estimate = receivables × (days saved ÷ 365).
Three anchors to price against
| Alternative the prospect knows | What it costs them |
|---|
| Process-intelligence platforms (enterprise contracts) | Six figures per year, before integration effort. |
| Consulting-led process documentation | More than €50K for a static report that ages immediately. |
| Doing nothing | Their top-10 processes keep leaking hours — the cockpit quantifies it per process in the first weeks. |
Internal · Do Not ShareProcess Discovery Sales PlaybookPersonas & qualification funnel
#06 · Who to sell to, and who blocks
Buyer personas — what lights them up
| Person in the room | What lights them up | Lead with |
|---|
| CIO / Chief Architect | The ontology. “I have not seen anything like this” came from exactly this persona. | Screen 1, plain-English queries, no-integration entry |
| COO / Transformation lead | The ranked automation queue — finally a fact base for where to start. | Screen 4, the 10-process ROI overview deliverable |
| CFO | Payback. Cash examples, fixed price, no open-ended consulting meter. | The receivables math, €50K fixed |
| Process owners | Being heard. Their workarounds finally documented — and a product that adapts to their feedback weekly. | The interview experience: one hour a week, their words |
Known blockers
- IT security / data protection — engage early with the security answers from #03; in Germany, ask whether a works council needs to be informed about employee interviews and observation. Raise it before they do — it builds trust.
- Middle managers guarding team time — the executive sponsor must mandate the ~4 hours weekly; if the sponsor won’t, that’s a qualification red flag, not a negotiation point.
#07 · Qualification: the design-partner funnel
Every prospect runs through the same funnel, and “not a design partner” is a routing decision, not a rejection. Source: Strategic Development Partner Evaluation Framework (Chris Fennell, 3 July 2026), adapted for sales use.
1
Gate hard — 4 yes/no questions
2
Score survivors — strategic 50% · technical 50%
3
Adjust for risk — 4 flags that cost points
4
Verdict — build · maybe · sell-to
The four gates (pass or stop) — yes/no; one “no” stops the design-partner conversation, no score rescues a failed gate.
| Gate | Pass looks like | Disqualify |
|---|
| G1 · Exec mandate & vision | CEO/founder personally says “go do it,” sees the vision, will champion it. | Middle-manager pet project, no exec air cover — “a side project with no weight.” |
| G2 · Leadership stability & capital | Stable C-suite, budget set aside, understands this is a 1yr+ journey. | Restructuring, “headless,” no committed budget, likely to defund midway. |
| G3 · Mutual commitment & capacity | Their sponsor and our team both have the in-room bandwidth, sized and agreed upfront. | Open-ended “we’ll find time” — on either side. |
| G4 · Expected output & reason to do it | A clear productionised output they walk away with, and a payoff big enough to endure for. | Vague deliverable, “legibility” that doesn’t move their business. |
Internal · Do Not ShareProcess Discovery Sales PlaybookDiscovery questions & scorecard
#07 · Discovery-call questions, mapped to gates
| What surfaces it on a call | Probes | Pass signal in the answer |
|---|
| “Who owns this decision — and have they personally said go?” | G1 | A named CEO/C-level champion, already engaged. |
| “Is there budget set aside, and is leadership stable enough for a year-plus journey?” | G2 | Committed budget, no restructuring underway. |
| “Can three process owners give an hour a week, with a sponsor protecting that time?” | G3 | Yes, without friction — the capacity is real. |
| “What would you need to walk away with for this to be a clear win?” | G4 | A concrete output and payoff in their words, not ours. |
| “How documented are these processes today? Where does the data live?” | T2/T3 | Honest answer either way — it sets the technical score, not the verdict. |
| “Have you built with AI agents before? Who would work with us on your side?” | T1/T5 | Named engineers or AI team, some agent experience. |
Scope guidance for the first build
Department-by-department, additively: bound the first build to 1–2 departments of a mid-sized, forward-leaning org — map one department, prove the concept, then extend. Whole-org-at-once is the ideal output but unrealistic as a first build. Reject the “productionised in 4 weeks” framing when a prospect pushes for it: it forces the half-baked-demo failure mode.
Scoring the survivors — the full partner scorecard
For prospects that clear all four gates. Two lenses, equal weight, and a candidate must be credible on both: a strong brand with weak engineering fails, and strong engineering with no exec mandate fails. The weights are directional, not precise — the framework is untested against real deals, so log every scored candidate so they can be tuned against outcomes.
Strategic lens · 50%
| Dimension | 5 — green flag | 1 — red flag | Weight |
|---|
| S1 Access / network effect | Large network, bench or platform we gain access to. | Closed; no leverage beyond the single deal. | 12% |
| S2 Industry-coverage fit | Opens a new, wanted vertical; ontology reusable across it. | Duplicates a covered vertical, or one nobody values. | 12% |
| S3 Partner upside (their 10x) | Clear, large payoff — enough to invest and endure. | “What’s in it for them?” unclear. | 12% |
| S4 Brand value (risk-adjusted) | Reputable, brand-safe name that opens doors. | Reputational risk, or so big they’d build it themselves. | 8% |
| S5 Ambition & altitude | Visibly ambitious, AI-native mindset. | Distracted, reactive, low-altitude. | 6% |
Technical lens · 50%
| Dimension | 5 — green flag | 1 — red flag | Weight |
|---|
| T1 Engineering bench on-hand | Process, API and AI engineers ready and willing now. | No internal capacity — we’d staff it ourselves. | 14% |
| T2 Process documentation maturity | SOPs and process maps documented, ready to upload. | Undocumented tribal knowledge only. | 10% |
| T3 Data legibility & modern stack | Consolidated data; been through a digital transformation. | Siloed data, legacy walled-garden ERP. | 10% |
| T4 Open, API-first, composable | API-first, event-driven, leadership driving open systems. | Closed architecture, no APIs. | 10% |
| T5 Agentic maturity | 6–12mo+ of agent builds, internal AI specialists. | Zero agent experience. | 6% |
Brand note from the source framework: while the concept is young, brand is upside, not a gate — keep partnerships quiet until proven, and don’t over-weight a logo.
Internal · Do Not ShareProcess Discovery Sales PlaybookScorecard, risk & deal mechanics
#07 · Risk modifiers (no points, quiet deductions)
| Modifier | Prefer | Penalise / flag |
|---|
| R1 Size of the elephant | Mid/small org or one bounded department — small ontology, fast proof. | Mega-enterprise scale → a 5-year map even with the best people. |
| R2 Compliance burden | Low regulatory drag — map and record freely. | Heavily regulated (betting, banking) — mapping and recording get blocked. |
| R3 IP / vendor risk | Won’t compete with us; strong contractual IP protection. | Consultancy/vendor likely to copy the IP and resell it. |
| R4 Digital-first bias check | Verify the assumption. | Don’t auto-assume only digital-first brands are “legible.” |
Per-candidate scorecard template
CANDIDATE________________________________
GATES
G1 exec mandate ...... PASS / FAIL
G2 stability .......... PASS / FAIL
G3 mutual commitment .. PASS / FAIL
G4 output & reason .... PASS / FAIL
→ any FAIL: stop, route to sell-to
STRATEGIC (50%)
S1 Access / network .......... [ ] ×0.12
S2 Industry-coverage fit ..... [ ] ×0.12
S3 Partner upside ............ [ ] ×0.12
S4 Brand (risk-adj) .......... [ ] ×0.08
S5 Ambition ................... [ ] ×0.06
TECHNICAL (50%)
T1 Engineering bench .......... [ ] ×0.14
T2 Process docs / SOPs ........ [ ] ×0.10
T3 Data legibility ............ [ ] ×0.10
T4 Open / API-first ........... [ ] ×0.10
T5 Agentic maturity ........... [ ] ×0.06
RISK
R1 size [ ] R2 compliance [ ] R3 IP/vendor [ ] R4 bias [ ]
VERDICTBuild partner / Maybe / Conditional / Sell-to only
#08 · Deal mechanics
| Stage | What happens |
|---|
| 1 · Discovery call (30 min) | Their pain, one messy process, and the four gates from #07: exec mandate, stability & budget, real capacity, a concrete output they want. One “no” → route to the sell-to pipeline, not the co-design offer. Show screens 1 and 4 only if asked. |
| 2 · Live demo (45–60 min) | The four-screen playbook from #02, with their stakeholders in the room. |
| 3 · Scoping session | Select the ten candidate processes together, name the three process owners, start the security checklist. |
| 4 · Kickoff | Within ~2 weeks of signing. Interviews start week one. |
Negotiation guardrails
- €50K is fixed. Do not discount. If a prospect pushes, the flexible levers are payment terms and which processes make the ten — never the price. Anything beyond that, escalate to Aqib.
- The 8-week schedule is the default. Stretching to fit their calendar is fine; compressing below 8 weeks is not — the interviews need the weeks.
- Never quote rollout pricing. “The engagement is €50K fixed; the rollout is something we design together in the week-8 readout.”
- Everything they keep is already in the offer doc (maps, runbooks, ROI overview) — don’t add commitments beyond it, especially not fee credits toward a rollout.
Internal · Do Not ShareProcess Discovery Sales PlaybookProof points & open gaps
#09 · Proof points
From a June 2026 call with the Chief Software Architect of a Fortune 500 insurer.
Pending clearance — confirm with Aqib before quoting externally; safe to paraphrase in conversation.
“I have not, frankly, seen anything like what you just showed.”
On the ontology view · Chief Software Architect, Fortune 500 insurer“Large enterprises have tons of processes they don’t understand that they want to layer AI into. You’re giving them the tools to figure that out.”
On the category · same call“I like that approach better than the approach that says we need to install a bunch of integrations on client systems, which no enterprise wants to let you do.”
On interview-first discovery vs. integration-first mining · same call“The stuff that you showed at the end generates more excitement than I think you guys even know.”
On the cockpit · same callAdditional signal usable in conversation (not as a quote): a major North American insurer validated the core problem to us directly — they do not understand their own processes well enough to deploy AI confidently.
#10 · Open gaps in this playbook
| Gap | Owner / status |
|---|
| Rollout pricing + payment terms | Aqib — define before first design partner signs. |
| 8-week schedule + “everything stays yours” ownership stance | Aqib — drafted as working assumptions in the offer doc, confirm or correct. |
| Quote clearance for external use | Aqib — currently paraphrase-only. |
| Security certifications & sub-processor list as a sendable one-pager | Open — reps currently promise “written answers” without an artifact. |
| Battlecard wedges (#04) at feature level | v1 shipped for Celonis, Klarity, consultancies — validate in live deals, especially the Klarity agent-building counter. |
Contents
- p.1 · #01 The pitch
- p.2 · #02 The demo playbook
- p.3–4 · #03 Objections & counters
- p.4 · #04 Battlecards — positioning
- p.5–6 · #04 Battlecards — Celonis, Klarity, consultancies
- p.6 · #05 ROI math
- p.7 · #06 Personas & blockers, #07 funnel & gates
- p.8 · #07 Discovery Qs & scorecard
- p.9 · #07 Risk & scoreform, #08 Deal mechanics
- p.10 · #09 Proof points, #10 Open gaps