Evaluating Entry into a New Regional Market

Thanks for joining the market entry review on October first. I am Rachel from Business Planning, and I will facilitate the discussion. Owen and Hana are here from Market Research, and Luis represents Service Design. Could everyone confirm that they have the revised research pack? We are considering the North Coast region for our workplace analytics service. Today we need to decide whether there is enough evidence to fund a demand study, not whether to establish an office immediately. Please challenge the assumptions behind the recommendation. We have a habit of interpreting enthusiastic interviews as buying intent, and I would like this discussion to distinguish those things carefully before we commit resources.

I have the updated pack. I led the customer interviews, so I should explain how we recruited participants before we discuss the findings. Twelve organizations agreed to speak with us, but eight came through an industry association that already knows our brand. They may be more receptive than a typical buyer. I can explain the interviews and the competitor research, although I would not call the sample representative. Hana reviewed the recruitment process independently and found a few weaknesses. I would rather put those weaknesses on the table now than discover later that our market estimate was built around people who were unusually willing to give us an hour of their time.

Yes, I have it, and my main concern is selection bias. We spoke mostly to department heads who enjoy discussing new tools. We did not speak to the people who authorize spending or to organizations that rejected our invitation. That means we understand interest better than procurement behavior. I have drafted a different recruitment plan that includes nonusers, smaller organizations, and budget holders. It will take more effort, because those people do not necessarily want to talk to us. However, their reluctance could itself tell us something important. We should also check whether the problem we solve is urgent enough to compete with the other projects those organizations are already funding.

I am ready as well. Service Design reviewed what it would take to support customers in that region. Translation is only one part of the work. The reporting calendar differs, managers expect different approval paths, and training sessions would need examples that make sense locally. We should not assume that a translated interface creates a usable service. I can help test the experience with prospective customers, but my team cannot redesign every workflow before we know whether anyone will pay. I would like a clear learning objective for any study we approve. Otherwise, research requests tend to expand until we have effectively designed a complete regional product without making an investment decision.

The business case currently assumes two hundred potential organizations and a ten percent conversion rate within eighteen months. At our proposed annual subscription, that would produce a meaningful new revenue stream, but neither assumption has been tested sufficiently. Owen, please walk us through the evidence behind the addressable market. I am particularly interested in what excludes an organization from the estimate. Counting every employer above a certain size might look rigorous while still ignoring whether they have the right systems, a relevant problem, or authority to purchase externally. We need an estimate that supports a decision, not a large number that gives the presentation a more exciting headline.

We started with an employer directory and removed organizations below five hundred staff. Then we excluded those without digital workforce records, which reduced the initial list considerably. We have not yet verified how many already use a comparable service through a global contract. That could reduce the opportunity further. On the other hand, several interviewees said their existing reporting tools are difficult to adapt to local requirements. That suggests dissatisfaction, but it does not establish willingness to switch. My recommendation is to treat the two hundred organizations as a research universe, not a revenue forecast. We can refine the estimate after checking existing contracts and identifying situations where the current approach actually fails.

I would go one step further and remove the conversion assumption from the executive summary for now. It creates an illusion of precision. We have not observed a sales cycle, and the people we interviewed may not control purchasing. Instead, we could present three hypotheses: customers experience a costly reporting problem, our approach solves it better than available alternatives, and a budget holder will pay for that improvement. Each hypothesis needs different evidence. A customer can agree with the first two while refusing the third. If we bundle them together, positive feedback on usability could mistakenly become justification for regional expansion. That is exactly the inference our study should prevent.

That structure helps me define a practical test. We could demonstrate a reporting task using a clickable prototype, then ask participants to compare it with their current process. However, the prototype should not suggest that every integration already exists. I would label simulated data clearly and explain which steps are manual. We can measure whether participants understand the result and whether it would change a real decision. If they simply say the screens look attractive, we have learned very little. I also want to ask what they would stop doing if they adopted the service. If nothing changes, our tool might become another dashboard that people admire but rarely use.

We have three possible entry routes: direct selling from our existing office, working with a regional advisory partner, or building a local team. I favor testing direct demand first because it gives us a clearer signal about the product itself. A partner may bring relationships, but it can also hide whether customers value our service or simply trust the adviser. Owen, your paper recommends a partner-led approach. Could you explain what we would learn through that route that we could not learn through direct interviews and a small paid study? I am open to the argument, but we should be explicit about the trade-offs before choosing an operating model.

My concern is access rather than outsourcing the relationship. The region relies heavily on introductions, and unsolicited approaches have received few responses. A partner could help us reach budget holders who would otherwise ignore the invitation. I do not propose granting exclusivity or promising a regional launch. We could use a short research arrangement with a fixed fee and no commission tied to positive findings. That would reduce the incentive to exaggerate demand. We should also recruit independently so the partner does not control the entire sample. In that sense, a partner is one recruitment channel, not the owner of our strategy or the person who decides whether the market is attractive.

I can support that if we protect the sampling plan. Let us recruit eighteen organizations across three segments, with six from each segment. Half should come through independent channels, and none should be selected merely because they already expressed enthusiasm. We should include organizations that use a competitor successfully, not only those looking for a replacement. That will show us where the existing alternatives are strong. I also suggest recording refusals and the reasons given, where people are willing to share them. A refusal because the problem is irrelevant is useful evidence. A refusal because the contact is on holiday tells us something very different and should not be coded the same way.

Eighteen interviews are manageable, but eighteen customized demonstrations are not. I suggest one common scenario for each segment, with only the terminology adapted. That gives participants something relevant while preserving comparability. We can ask them to bring an anonymized example of a recurring reporting difficulty, but we should not accept identifiable employee data. The study is about the workflow, not their staff. If a participant requests a feature outside the prototype, we will record the request and ask why it matters rather than promise to build it. I would also like a stop rule: if the service cannot address the central problem without a major redesign, we should say so before discussing regional staffing.

I propose a research budget of thirty-six thousand dollars, covering recruitment, interpretation, prototype preparation, and analysis. This is our preliminary planning estimate, and we can revise it after recruitment quotes arrive. We will not use the number of compliments as our decision criterion. To recommend the next investment stage, we need at least six organizations to describe a recurring problem that our demonstrated approach addresses, and at least three budget holders to sign a paid assessment order at the stated fee. Those thresholds are screening criteria, not a guaranteed business case. We will still review acquisition costs, implementation burden, and whether the orders depend on conditions that would make the service uneconomic.

I will prepare the recruitment brief and partner research agreement by Monday, October fifth, at eleven a.m. Asia/Seoul. The agreement will prohibit exclusivity claims and make clear that the partner cannot promise product features or a launch date. I will also correct the market estimate so it distinguishes the research universe from qualified demand. Before any interview takes place, I will share the questions with Hana for a bias review. We should avoid leading with our proposed solution and then asking people whether they like it. I will begin with their current decisions, the consequences of reporting errors, and the alternatives they have already tried without our involvement.

I will own the evidence framework and the interview sample. By Tuesday, October sixth, at three p.m. Asia/Seoul, I will publish the recruitment quotas, refusal categories, and criteria for a credible buying signal. I will attend the first three interviews to check how the questions work in practice. After that, I will review recordings only where participants have consented, otherwise using notes they have approved. We should distinguish the research fee from the future subscription price, because an inexpensive assessment order does not prove willingness to purchase a full service. My analysis will show that limitation explicitly rather than quietly upgrading one kind of commitment into another.

I will deliver the three prototype scenarios by Friday, October ninth, at noon Asia/Seoul. Each will demonstrate a specific decision rather than a collection of attractive charts. I will include a facilitator note describing simulated steps, unsupported integrations, and questions that the demonstration should answer. We will not collect employee-level files or connect to a customer's production system. For the paid assessment, I can define a deliverable that has independent value even if the customer never buys a subscription: a documented workflow review and improvement recommendations. That keeps the offer honest. Customers should pay for useful work, not for admission to a sales conversation disguised as a study.

One question before we finish: what do we say if the partner asks for a share of future regional revenue as part of recruitment? They may see the study as the beginning of a commercial relationship. I can explain that we are not choosing a distribution partner, but I would like a consistent boundary. My recommendation is to decline revenue sharing during research and consider any future commercial arrangement through a separate evaluation. Otherwise, we could inherit a long-term obligation from a short-term study. I will document that boundary in the agreement and ask prospective partners to confirm that they understand it before we compare their recruitment proposals.

Agreed. We are authorizing evidence collection, not delegating market ownership to a partner. Our next meeting is Monday, October twelfth, at nine thirty a.m. Asia/Seoul, for forty minutes. We will review recruitment progress, the prototype scenarios, and any request that changes the research boundary. The final market recommendation is due November ninth, after the interview and paid assessment evidence has been reviewed. If the study shows weak demand, stopping is a valid outcome, not a failed project. Please state that in the briefing so colleagues do not feel pressure to manufacture a positive answer simply because we have already spent the research budget.

I will add that statement and include disconfirming evidence in every progress update. For example, if customers can solve the problem cheaply with their current tools, that belongs in the report even when it undermines our favorite hypothesis. I will also show how many budget holders we actually reached, rather than reporting only the total number of conversations. That will help us judge whether a negative result reflects weak demand or poor recruitment. Those are different explanations with different consequences. At the October twelfth meeting, I will bring the sample dashboard and two anonymized interview summaries so we can check whether the method is producing evidence that answers the decision questions.

That gives Service Design a sensible role. We will investigate whether the problem and the proposed experience fit, without treating every customer suggestion as a feature request that has already been approved. If a scenario needs major changes, I will explain the operational reason and its effect on the investment case. Rachel, please make sure the internal announcement describes this as market research, because a rumor about expansion could prompt other teams to begin hiring or translating material prematurely. With that wording clear, I can start the scenarios tomorrow. I will share the first draft with Owen and Hana early enough for them to challenge the assumptions before the demonstrations are finalized.