Optimising Sales Queries: Reducing Internal Cost & Increasing Efficiency (Nick)
Protect, Empower, Create.
Background
As Sales push into new markets and chase a broader range of prospects in a high-pressure environment (post-restructure), the lack of process around answering ad-hoc questions is becoming a blocker rather than a help.
The key issues:
Ownership: Who is responsible for answering? Placement: Where should queries be posted? Worthiness: Is the question worth answering from a cost-benefit perspective? These inefficiencies lead to wasted time, unclear accountability, and additional internal costs. We need a structured approach that protects the business, empowers Sales, and ensures our efforts are commercially viable.
There are both short term, and longer term, options for us to stymie these issues. Below, I’ve set out the below guide for how this should be done, and how we can get to a best practice model.
Protect
New markets and prospects bring new risks—ranging from simple (“Can we hire blue-collar workers under our model?”) to complex (“A company accused of modern slavery—what’s our stance?”). How we deal with each prospect will be unique, however our Sales team should have a solid understanding of both the risks of a potential client, and our internal Risk Tolerance. Knowing what a potential “show stopper” looks like avoids wasting time with taking meetings that will lead no-where, as well as reducing C-Suite time on a decision that was only ever going to go one way. Sales must understand:
The potential risks of onboarding certain clients. Our internal risk tolerance and red flags. What constitutes a "show-stopper" to prevent wasted effort. This also provides Boundless with a greater level of protection. Without a formal compliance program, onboarding checks, or screening processes, we must integrate some level of risk mitigation early in the Sales process.
Short-term Fix:
Nick to deliver a 30-minute risk training session for Sales, covering what we’re concerned about, what to look for, when to push back, and how to ask the right questions. Long-term Fix:
A comprehensive risk and compliance program, including: Risk assessment frameworks. Client due diligence processes. Periodic reviews to ensure alignment with company risk appetite. Note - Nick has already designed and as well as full rollout . Implementation is pending board approval, definitions around risk tolerances, and resourcing/budget. Empower
Currently, Sales queries (e.g., NHR eligibility, blue-collar hiring) are scattered across Slack with no clear structure. The consequences:
Unclear accountability: No designated team or owner. Redundant questions: Sales potentially asks for information we should already have/isn’t stored correctly for them to access Lost knowledge: Paid for (e.g. external legal advice) answers get buried in Slack, reducing long-term value. We miss an opportunity to store and gain from the information we do seek to answer these questions longer term. Slack is an excellent place to search, but a true knowledge store requires well indexed and easily researchable advice in a consistent format.
Short-term Fix:
Implement a centralised query channel and form (similar to Finance Queries) where Sales can submit structured questions with assigned ownership and documented responses. Medium/Long-term Fix:
What are the most common questions? Which countries do they relate to? Why don’t we already have this information? Is it commercially viable to acquire this knowledge proactively? Structured Query Submission Process: Sales submits a query via a form (as discussed above) with key details: Client details & country. Assigned owner (HR, GI, Finance, etc.). Internal vs. External Resolution: Can we answer internally? If yes, document it in the knowledge base or correct why Sales didn’t have access to it. If not, should this be part of a gap-filling exercise? If external advice is needed: Is it a one-off or something we should store for future use? Perform a cost-benefit analysis (Finance to validate). Example: For a EUR 10k ARR client, we invest up to 5% on legal; for EUR 40k, we spend up to 10%, etc. Assess annual spending on ad-hoc legal queries. Engage a preferred legal partner (likely Bird & Bird) and open a General Employment Advice file. Negotiate a minimum spend for preferred rates and faster response times based on the annual spending we’re already doing. This will help Sales close more deals at pace. This creates cost savings via discounts and strengthens our relationship for urgent queries. Knowledge Storage & Management: Assign a clear owner for liaising with legal. Implement systematic categorisation of responses. Ensure that any external advice is properly logged in our knowledge base to avoid redundant spending. Create
The Commercial Opportunity.
We need to distinguish between queries we should absorb as a cost of doing business vs. those that present commercial opportunities:
Absorbed Costs: Information gaps that should be proactively addressed for efficiency and scalability. Recharge Model: Charge clients for legal consultations where applicable. Markup Model: If we secure discounted legal rates, we can apply a markup to cover internal time spent on queries. Value-Add: Highlight when we’ve invested in expert knowledge to support a client, reinforcing our credibility and expertise. If executed correctly, this not only offsets costs but also differentiates us in a competitive market.
Sales Enablement