Delivered client workflow — anonymised · Weekly run · Reviewed before release
Fifty ranked accounts before Monday.
A battery-services business receives fifty priority accounts, a record of what changed and project-specific proposal drafts from one weekly workflow. Its account manager reviews every proposal before release. The case records the sources, scoring method and results against the team’s earlier process.
50
priority accounts each weekly cycle
2–4 weeks → minutes
from signal to actionable opportunity
Named reviewer
before every proposal is released
Chapter 01 / 06
The result
The workflow makes the commercial opportunity visible before Monday starts, with the prior process retained as the comparison.
Workflow context and documented result
A battery lifecycle and servicing business rebuilt its commercial-opportunity workflow on MorpheusOS. Moving a single opportunity from a signal somewhere in the market to something a salesperson could act on took two to six people, ten separate sources and two to four weeks. That journey now runs in minutes inside one guided workflow: fifty priority accounts ranked on published weights, a change board showing what moved, proposals drafted per project, scope and customer, and a territory summary in the team’s inbox before Monday starts. A named account manager reviews every proposal before it leaves.
The numbers, with their baselines.
Every figure below is an operating fact, read off the running workflow against the business’s own prior process. The account is anonymised; the operating record supplies the evidence.
People per opportunity
Before
2–6
After
One reviewer
Sources consulted
Before
10 separate places
After
One guided workflow
Intake to actionable
Before
2–4 weeks
After
Minutes
Accounts ranked each cycle
Before
As many as one person could read
After
50, on published weights
Battery capacity covered
Before
—
After
11.2 GW
In near-term commercial windows
Before
Found by hand, if at all
After
18
New or reactivated, week on week
Before
Not tracked
After
+9%
Proposal preparation
Before
Assembled manually, per opportunity
After
Drafted from the run — project, scope and customer specific
Where the knowledge lives
Before
One strategist’s judgement
After
Published weights and logic
Cost of more activity
Before
More coordination
After
The same run
Bring the analyst’s evidence together.
The business already knew which assets mattered, which service triggers were commercially real, and which operators were worth a call. The workflow brings that expertise alongside the changing market.
Ten sources, one commercial question
Email, spreadsheets, shared folders, internal records, PDFs, CRM and project-management systems, public project sources, OEM and EPC announcements, interconnection and permitting references, and internal chat.
Where the preparation time went
It went on finding the right information, confirming it was current, checking for missing documents, asking someone for clarification, copying between systems, and deciding whether the opportunity was commercially relevant at all.
A clear output and handoff
Producing something usable, and making sure the next action was recorded or communicated to whoever owned it — because if it was not written down, it depended on someone remembering.
One opportunity: two to six people, two to four weeks, and four costs that never appeared on an invoice — cost, delay, inconsistency and handoff risk.
The source set and analyst method become inspectable parts of the run.
Make the handoffs repeatable.
The process depended on people knowing where to look, what to check, who to ask, and how to turn scattered information into a decision. That is a knowledge problem wearing a capacity problem’s clothes.
More activity meant more coordination
Every additional opportunity added handoffs rather than absorbing into a system. Growth in the pipeline arrived as growth in the meeting load.
The same case ran differently twice
Two people working the same opportunity checked different sources in a different order and weighted them differently. Neither was wrong. Neither was repeatable.
The method left when the person did
The judgement that made a ranking good — which trigger actually predicts a service need — sat with the people who had learned it, and nowhere else.
What a good analyst actually does, written down.
The build did not start with software. It started with the question of what the best version of this process looks like when the person who is best at it is not in the room.
Required fields
What must be present before an opportunity is assessed at all — so nothing is scored on a guess.
Source hierarchy
Which source wins when two disagree, and how recency is weighed against authority.
Service-trigger logic
Which asset events, ownership changes and operating conditions actually indicate a service need — the judgement that used to live in one head.
Documentation standard
What evidence has to sit behind a ranking for a salesperson to be able to defend it in the room.
Output structure
The shape of the radar, the change board and the proposal — so every cycle is comparable with the last.
Escalation rules
What stops the run and goes to a person, rather than being decided by a score.
Those six things are the asset. The workflow is what executes them.
Accepted and rejected recommendations, reliable sources and overrides are retained as learning.
The strategy improves because the corrections are kept.
The difference between a report and an operating layer is what happens to a disagreement. Here, a strategist overruling a score is not a workaround — it is the input.
Which recommendations are taken
Accepted and rejected rankings both carry information about the weights.
Which accounts convert
Outreach outcomes logged against the trigger that surfaced them.
Which sources hold up
Reliability tracked per source, so authority is earned rather than assumed.
Which signals mislead
False positives are recorded, and the trigger that produced them loses weight.
Where an expert overrides
The correction and its reasoning are retained, so the next cycle starts from the corrected position.
Which proposals move
What progressed to a real conversation, and what stalled and where.
Institutional knowledge stops being something the business hopes to retain and becomes something the workflow accumulates.
The FAQ states the workflow’s current scope, data treatment and approval boundary.
What people ask about this build.
Answered against the run record, not the intention.
How long did this workflow take before MorpheusOS?
Two to four weeks from intake to completion, involving two to six people and ten separate sources — email, spreadsheets, shared folders, internal records, PDFs, CRM and project-management systems, public project sources, OEM and EPC announcements, interconnection and permitting references, and internal chat. The run now completes in minutes inside one guided workflow.
Does the workflow send proposals to customers?
No. It drafts them. Every proposal is project-, scope- and customer-specific and is reviewed by a named account manager before it leaves the business. On the five-stage autonomy ladder this workflow sits at Prepare: it prepares the artefact and stops before any external action.
What does the scoring actually rank on?
Published weights. The ranking is not a black box — the weights, the source hierarchy and the service-trigger logic are all inspectable. That is what lets a strategist disagree with a score and have the disagreement change the next cycle rather than get lost in a thread.
What happens when a source is stale or missing?
It is recorded as missing rather than quietly absent. Confirming whether data was current was one of the hidden costs in the manual process; every ranked account now carries its source and its recency.
Does this reduce the size of the sales team?
No. It changes which work they do. The coordination load — finding, confirming, copying between systems, chasing the person who knew — is carried by the workflow. Commercial decisions, technical commitments and anything customer-facing stay with people. More activity is now absorbed by the same run instead of by more coordination.
How does the workflow improve after it is live?
It learns from which recommendations the team accepts or rejects, which accounts convert, which sources prove reliable, which signals produce false positives, which service triggers lead to real opportunities, and where an internal expert overrides an assumption. Those corrections become the logic the next cycle runs on.