ICP Scoring Matrix (Execution Step 1)¶
Purpose¶
This document operationalizes the founder brief into a practical ICP qualification system that can be used by product, founder-led sales, and partnerships.
Primary positioning anchor: - SDETKit is the release-confidence layer for deterministic SHIP / NO-SHIP decisions with machine-readable evidence.
This ICP matrix turns that positioning into a repeatable process for deciding where to invest GTM effort.
How to use this matrix¶
- Score every target account/opportunity on the 10 dimensions below.
- Each dimension is scored 0-10.
- Apply weighting to generate weighted total score out of 100.
- Use score band decisioning:
- 80-100: Tier A (high-priority active pursuit)
- 65-79: Tier B (qualified nurture / pilot)
- 50-64: Tier C (light-touch / monitor)
- <50: Tier D (deprioritize for now)
ICP dimensions and weights¶
| # | Dimension | Weight | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Release risk exposure | 14 | Higher release risk increases urgency for deterministic release confidence. |
| 2 | Governance/compliance pressure | 12 | Governance-heavy teams value auditable artifacts and policy evidence. |
| 3 | CI standardization need | 10 | Teams with fragmented CI gain value from one canonical release path. |
| 4 | Multi-repo operational complexity | 10 | Complexity amplifies triage and decision inconsistency pain. |
| 5 | Failure triage pain | 10 | Slow triage directly maps to SDETKit’s artifact-first remediation value. |
| 6 | QA/SDET/platform maturity | 10 | Mature teams adopt process tools faster and expand usage. |
| 7 | Internal champion strength | 9 | A strong champion drives implementation speed and change management. |
| 8 | Tooling integration readiness | 8 | Readiness affects onboarding friction and time-to-value. |
| 9 | Budget authority & timing | 9 | Buying power and cycle timing determine deal velocity. |
| 10 | Strategic urgency (next 90 days) | 8 | Active initiatives create near-term adoption windows. |
Total weight = 100.
Dimension scoring definitions¶
1) Release risk exposure (weight 14)¶
| Score | Qualification signal |
|---|---|
| 0-2 | Low-risk internal tooling; outages rarely matter. |
| 3-4 | Moderate service impact; release issues manageable manually. |
| 5-6 | Noticeable production risk; post-release surprises happen monthly. |
| 7-8 | High impact incidents tied to release quality are frequent. |
| 9-10 | Mission-critical releases with high blast radius and executive attention. |
Discovery prompts¶
- “How costly is a failed release in customer, SLA, or revenue terms?”
- “How often do release rollbacks occur?”
- “What percentage of incidents are linked to release changes?”
2) Governance/compliance pressure (weight 12)¶
| Score | Qualification signal |
|---|---|
| 0-2 | No formal release controls; low audit needs. |
| 3-4 | Minimal compliance; occasional checklists. |
| 5-6 | Standard controls with periodic reviews. |
| 7-8 | Frequent audit requirements; evidence retention expected. |
| 9-10 | Strict regulated controls requiring machine-readable approval evidence. |
Discovery prompts¶
- “What audit evidence do release approvers require today?”
- “Are release approvals linked to formal policy frameworks?”
- “How often do teams struggle to produce decision evidence?”
3) CI standardization need (weight 10)¶
| Score | Qualification signal |
|---|---|
| 0-2 | Uniform CI across all repos; low process drift. |
| 3-4 | Minor variation but broadly standardized. |
| 5-6 | Several pipelines with non-trivial variation. |
| 7-8 | Significant inconsistency in release checks and outputs. |
| 9-10 | Fragmented CI causing chronic confidence and ownership gaps. |
Discovery prompts¶
- “How many CI patterns are currently used across repos?”
- “Do teams produce comparable release decision artifacts?”
- “How often does CI disagreement block release decisions?”
4) Multi-repo operational complexity (weight 10)¶
| Score | Qualification signal |
|---|---|
| 0-2 | Single repo, low integration load. |
| 3-4 | Few repos with light dependency graph. |
| 5-6 | Moderate repo estate with occasional coordination friction. |
| 7-8 | Large repo estate with frequent cross-team dependencies. |
| 9-10 | Portfolio-level complexity with ongoing aggregation/reporting pain. |
Discovery prompts¶
- “How many active repositories are in release scope?”
- “How do you aggregate release confidence across repos?”
- “What is the escalation path for cross-repo release blockers?”
5) Failure triage pain (weight 10)¶
| Score | Qualification signal |
|---|---|
| 0-2 | Fast triage, clear ownership, low friction. |
| 3-4 | Occasional triage delays. |
| 5-6 | Repeated delays due to scattered outputs. |
| 7-8 | Triage frequently stalls due to ambiguity and noisy logs. |
| 9-10 | Chronic triage bottlenecks with measurable engineering drag. |
Discovery prompts¶
- “Mean time to triage first failure?”
- “How often do teams debate interpretation vs act on artifacts?”
- “Which failure classes consume the most coordination time?”
6) QA/SDET/platform maturity (weight 10)¶
| Score | Qualification signal |
|---|---|
| 0-2 | Minimal quality engineering process. |
| 3-4 | Informal testing/quality workflows. |
| 5-6 | Defined quality practices but inconsistent enforcement. |
| 7-8 | Mature quality/reliability functions with clear ownership. |
| 9-10 | Advanced platform quality programs with executive visibility. |
Discovery prompts¶
- “Who owns release quality policy today?”
- “Are quality KPIs reviewed weekly/monthly?”
- “How standardized are remediation workflows?”
7) Internal champion strength (weight 9)¶
| Score | Qualification signal |
|---|---|
| 0-2 | No active sponsor, unclear ownership. |
| 3-4 | Interested individual contributor without influence. |
| 5-6 | Mid-level champion can run pilot but limited authority. |
| 7-8 | Senior technical owner with cross-team influence. |
| 9-10 | Executive-backed champion with mandate and urgency. |
Discovery prompts¶
- “Who is accountable for release confidence outcomes?”
- “Can the champion secure pilot resources quickly?”
- “How far can this person push standardization?”
8) Tooling integration readiness (weight 8)¶
| Score | Qualification signal |
|---|---|
| 0-2 | Tooling constraints block integrations. |
| 3-4 | Limited engineering bandwidth for implementation. |
| 5-6 | Moderate readiness but competing priorities. |
| 7-8 | Active reliability roadmap with implementation capacity. |
| 9-10 | Dedicated platform capacity and integration enablement. |
Discovery prompts¶
- “Who can own technical onboarding in first 2 weeks?”
- “Any blockers for Python/CLI rollout?”
- “Can CI pipeline templates be updated this quarter?”
9) Budget authority & timing (weight 9)¶
| Score | Qualification signal |
|---|---|
| 0-2 | No budget visibility; no sponsor path. |
| 3-4 | Budget uncertain; long-cycle discovery only. |
| 5-6 | Budget possible with pilot proof. |
| 7-8 | Budget owner involved, timing this/next quarter. |
| 9-10 | Budget approved or pre-allocated for release governance improvements. |
Discovery prompts¶
- “Who signs budget for developer tooling/reliability?”
- “Is there funding this quarter for release confidence initiatives?”
- “What proof is required for procurement?”
10) Strategic urgency (next 90 days) (weight 8)¶
| Score | Qualification signal |
|---|---|
| 0-2 | No near-term urgency. |
| 3-4 | Interest but no committed timeline. |
| 5-6 | Problem acknowledged with tentative quarter plan. |
| 7-8 | Active initiative underway with clear timeline. |
| 9-10 | Executive mandate or incident-driven urgency now. |
Discovery prompts¶
- “What happens if this is not solved this quarter?”
- “Are there launch/release milestones at risk?”
- “Is leadership asking for measurable improvement now?”
Scoring sheet template¶
Use this template per account:
| Dimension | Raw score (0-10) | Weight | Weighted score |
|---|---|---|---|
| Release risk exposure | 14 | ||
| Governance/compliance pressure | 12 | ||
| CI standardization need | 10 | ||
| Multi-repo complexity | 10 | ||
| Failure triage pain | 10 | ||
| QA/SDET/platform maturity | 10 | ||
| Internal champion strength | 9 | ||
| Tooling integration readiness | 8 | ||
| Budget authority & timing | 9 | ||
| Strategic urgency | 8 | ||
| Total | 100 |
Formula: - Weighted score = (Raw score / 10) × Weight
Tiering rules and action playbook¶
Tier A (80-100) — active pursuit¶
Actions: 1. Book 60-minute deep discovery. 2. Run first-proof pilot within 7 days. 3. Capture before/after triage metrics baseline. 4. Build proposal with ROI framing.
Expected cycle: - 2-6 weeks to pilot outcome.
Tier B (65-79) — qualified nurture / pilot shortlist¶
Actions: 1. 30-minute qualification + scoped pilot proposal. 2. Share role-based quickstart and fit narrative. 3. Re-score after 2 weeks based on urgency/champion updates.
Expected cycle: - 4-10 weeks.
Tier C (50-64) — monitor and educate¶
Actions: 1. Lightweight operator guidanceal sequence. 2. Invite to workshop/webinar/office hours. 3. Trigger re-qualification on incident or governance event.
Expected cycle: - 8-20+ weeks.
Tier D (<50) — deprioritize¶
Actions: 1. Capture in CRM with next review date. 2. No proactive high-touch sales motion. 3. Revisit only when strategic trigger occurs.
ICP hypothesis board (v1)¶
Hypothesis H1¶
- Enterprises with strict release governance will convert faster because machine-readable artifacts reduce approval ambiguity.
Validation signal: - Shorter pilot-to-expansion cycle in compliance-heavy teams.
Hypothesis H2¶
- Platform teams managing 20+ repos will show the strongest ROI due to CI standardization and triage savings.
Validation signal: - Improvement in first-failure triage and reduced release gate conflict.
Hypothesis H3¶
- Teams with an executive-backed champion will expand from core gate path to enterprise workflows faster.
Validation signal: - Higher 30-day activation + higher 90-day expansion rate.
Discovery call script (structured)¶
Opening (5 min)¶
- Confirm release confidence objective.
- Confirm desired outcomes in 30/60/90 days.
Current-state mapping (10 min)¶
- Release flow today.
- Decision bottlenecks.
- Failure triage pattern.
Pain quantification (10 min)¶
- Incident impact.
- Triage delay cost.
- Governance evidence friction.
Future-state fit (10 min)¶
- Canonical gate path fit.
- Artifact workflow fit.
- CI rollout feasibility.
Pilot design (10 min)¶
- Scope, timeline, owner.
- Baseline metrics.
- Success criteria.
Close (5 min)¶
- Score account.
- Tier decision.
- Next-step commitment.
Qualification anti-patterns¶
Avoid false positives: 1. “Interested” but no owner. 2. “Important” but no timeline. 3. “Need governance” but no approval process. 4. “Tooling initiative” but zero implementation bandwidth.
If 2 or more anti-patterns present, cap at Tier C until evidence changes.
Evidence package required per qualified account¶
For Tier A/B opportunities, collect: 1. Current release process map. 2. Current failure triage process and latency estimate. 3. CI landscape summary. 4. Governance evidence requirements. 5. Named champion + decision chain.
ROI baseline worksheet (input template)¶
| Metric | Baseline value | Target value | Time horizon |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mean time to triage first failure | 30 days | ||
| Failed release gate frequency | 30-90 days | ||
| Evidence completeness for approvals | 30 days | ||
| CI decision consistency | 30-90 days |
Weekly operating rhythm for ICP execution¶
Monday¶
- Re-score pipeline and prioritize Tier A work.
Tuesday¶
- Run high-priority discovery and pilot scoping.
Wednesday¶
- Build account-specific business cases.
Thursday¶
- Execute technical pilot follow-up.
Friday¶
- Review conversions, losses, and scoring calibration.
Governance and ownership¶
- Owner: Founder/GM or Head of GTM.
- Contributors: Product, Solutions Engineer, Platform advocate.
- Review cadence: Weekly pipeline review + monthly scoring recalibration.
Calibration guide (first 8 weeks)¶
Week 1-2: - Run matrix on 20 historical prospects.
Week 3-4: - Compare predicted tier vs actual engagement.
Week 5-6: - Adjust weights if overfitting to one segment.
Week 7-8: - Freeze v1.1 scoring model for quarter execution.
Implementation notes¶
- Store scores in CRM with timestamp and owner.
- Keep free-text evidence notes per dimension.
- Maintain audit trail for score changes.
Done criteria for this document¶
This ICP matrix is “done for v1” when: 1. All pipeline targets are scored. 2. Tiering drives weekly execution priorities. 3. Conversion data feeds monthly calibration.