A peer benchmark quiz that reaches automation buyers before they reopen the integrator choice
Automation buyers often reopen their choice of integrator at licence renewal. A time-boxed benchmark campaign, with a peer readout and a process-mining workshop as the prize, puts the firm in that review early.
- Challenge
Automation buyers reopen the integrator choice at renewal, and the firm hears too late.
- Approach
A time-boxed automation benchmark, promoted to a named list and platform user groups.
- Result
Respondents scored after close and followed up with their place against peers.
The situation
When an automation licence comes up for renewal, finance and claims-operations heads often find fewer processes in production than the business case promised, and bots that break whenever an underlying application changes. Many use the renewal to compare integrators, with shortlists formed through peers and the platform's customer user groups. A firm outside those conversations ends up answering a tender written around a competitor, and its cold outreach reads like every other integrator's.
The question that mattered
How can the firm get finance and claims-operations heads to share where their automation stands before the integrator choice reopens?
What we did
- 1
Build the benchmark around the renewal question
Write questions an operations head can answer without IT: processes in production, exception rates, breakages after application changes and who maintains the bots. Each answer is compared with sector peers.
- 2
Acquire a named audience
Invite finance and claims-operations heads at target insurers and shared-service centres by email and LinkedIn. Co-promote it through the automation platform's customer user groups, with a published closing date.
- 3
Host the campaign and the prize
Run the benchmark on a short page, with reminders as the close approaches. Publish the prize terms up front: a process-mining workshop on a process the winning team chooses, awarded after close to the team whose answers show the clearest automation case.
- 4
Score after close and follow up
Once entries close, score each respondent on fit, renewal timing and the gap to peers. Every respondent gets the peer readout; the highest scorers are offered a results review with an automation lead.
What we delivered
The evidence and working documents the team kept.
- Automation benchmark questionnaire with peer comparison logic
- Named invitation list and user-group promotion plan
- Campaign page, reminder schedule and published prize terms
- Anonymised peer benchmark readout by sector, sent after close
- Post-close scoring model and follow-up tracks by score band
The outcome
Claims and finance heads
describing bot breakages and maintenance load before any sales contact
User-group members
entering alongside the named list
Sales
working the scored list after close, nearest renewals first
Automation leads
opening each review from where the respondent sits against peers
The firm now learns which automation programmes are struggling before renewal, while the integrator choice is still open.
What changed in the GTM motion
Each campaign runs to a set window: promotion, a published close, scoring, then the readout. A post-close review between sales and the automation practice assigns an owner to every scored account, and anonymised answers shape the next edition.
Services in this programme
Case studies
More programmes like this
Hearing about integrator reviews only once the tender is out?
Tell us where it is stuck. A founder replies within one working day.