In3 Client Service Tiers

In3 Client Service Tiers

How we work with incoming leads and new clients at different service levels

How do we allocate our time and what can you do to get more of it, sooner?

We use a merit-based system that enables the most qualified clients to advance more quickly than less qualified ones. Why? Just as we must assess funding feasibility to focus resources on winning proposals, success comes from going deeper, not wider.

We respect that time is “of the essence,” and we do everything we can to give your project proposal the attention it deserves. What you may describe as “urgent” sometimes needs clarification or rationale.  For whom is it urgent? How will that urgency translate into agreements to jointly pursue the opportunity at hand? Have there been external promises made?  What results are needed, and by when? 

Expectations that are fact-based and reasonable guide our prioritization; just saying that “urgency” is relative. If there is new information that has come to light that can help us gain mutual understanding, that helps us align and focus.

In our experience, putting one’s card on the table is vital if we are going to succeed together. But there is a tendency to act like something is an “emergency” when that situation resulted from a lack of foresight or effective planning. A lesson to be learned. And whose lesson is that, exactly?  

We’re asking you to “own” where the urgency came from to learn and collaborate more effectively. When there’s an actual hard stop or deadline that we need to factor in, please let us know so we are better informed and learn all we can to guide decision-making.  We can move more quickly than most, but do benefit from the “full picture” — so please don’t hold back or “spin” the reality at hand.

Simply stating that something is urgent does not make it so for us. This is a negotiation.  We both just want results, right? To help expedite, going forward, In3 allocates time within the following hierarchy, with more than half of our attention focused on Tiers 1 & 2:

1. Current clients under “enhanced” (fee-for-service) contracts with strong opportunities.  This includes fee-for-service work such as securing their guarantee or delivering their due diligence package.
2. Current high-priority/high-quality client situations under more speculative contract with less strong opportunities, such as sectors we support but that are outside our strategic interests, or that are focused on CAP funding and run into issues with due diligence.
3. Clients seeking CAP funding without a contract for In3’s role. Those that have yet to sign a services contract (Tiers 3-6 pay nothing up front, typically, so they have nothing to lose and everything to gain if they can qualify and get under contract), will get moved to the front of the line for taking next steps toward a funding contract.  Note that all other funding options will require a Tier 1 or 2 contract with some cash on the line.  Within Tier 3, we make further distinctions per our Affiliate MasterClass on their feasibility, scored from 1-5.  in3capital.net/feasibility-scores-how-we-work-toward-client-success/  For example, Tier 3 CAP funding leads with a Feasibility Score of 4 would be a Tier 3.4 lead … Feasibility of 5 would thus be Tier 3.5.  When we submit their due diligence package, we often have a video conference call to meet the principals and address any critical-path questions.
4. Qualified leads that need our help and attention – Feasibility ratings of 1-3, typically. Once a lead is fully qualified (delivering at least 5 or 6 of the “essentials”), we provide vetting services and then put them in touch with the family office or our lending partners.  Communication with Tier 4 clients is mostly via group Email or WhatsApp text when such discussion is needed. 
5. Leads in the process of qualification – we coach/advise these at most 30 minutes per lead per week to bring forward their Six Essentials or equivalent set of basics for other capital.  We’re evaluating if a subscription to an additional 30-60 minutes/week of our team’s time would help better serve leads that want more timely attention. This will be a discounted rate of $200 per month ($40-$50/hour).
6. Unqualified leads – we politely say “here’s what you need to do to qualify” or Affiliates will advise such leads to bring forward necessary evidence – such as a draft SBLC per our template — that they are now ready to proceed.  Once they understand what is required, it is up to them to perform.  We’ve shifted to an automated system (first they start with www.in3finance.com/apply then if they have met basic screening of our “Four Cornerstones” and seeking CAP, then they will eventually use in3finance.com/in3CAP, still in still in development).  This will evolve to the point that we can both rely on it to increase our productivity.  That means they either go to Tier 5 or jump to a Tier 1 or 2 contract with us to receive more personalized attention.

Note:  Although this might not be the case for you, most of our incoming leads simply cannot perform.  We tend to be inundated with Tier 6’s (the classic “sales funnel” … makes sense), with many aspiring to reach Tier 5’s CAP funding qualification, but unfortunately lacking the necessary financial depth to arrange a guarantee and sometimes lacking the skills with which to attract a sponsor.  We continue to rely on trained Affiliates such to help these leads figure out their best options, bringing forward to In3’s attention only those leads that are pre-qualified for CAP or ready to enter a Tier 1 or 2 services agreement. 

Please familiarize yourself with this hierarchy, offer feedback if you spot any issues, then use it to your advantage. For example, Affiliates are urged to focus on building their practice so that 80-90% of their time goes to Tiers 1-4.  If you are an Affiliate or wish to become one, consider what you would be doing the same, contrasted with what you would be doing different, to achieve this. How much time do you now spend with Tiers 5 and 6 unqualified leads (aka “suspects”)? How can In3’s systems help you — whether Affiliates or prospective clients — to cut to the chase and get to more financial closings?

That way, we can serve clients together more effectively with far less wheel-spinning.  We will communicate using this same language (Tiers, by the numbers) and cooperate to divide the work and fees, delivering the attention they deserve.  That also means not giving too much time or attention to the 5’s and 6’s.

A certain amount of variety or “diversity” feels like you are increasing your odds of success (getting paid for your hard work), but history shows it is the opposite.  Even if you can remain open, non-judgmental, and curious about essential facts (received without prejudice), then you would still likely “kill” (screen out) quite a few incoming projects for every one that actually ends up receiving funding. This is normal, natural … humans do the best they can with this conundrum. But we know we can always do better.

An important subtopic, in fact a driver for the above, is whether or not there is a feasible project or venture on the table seeking services or funding. How do we know this? What are the essential facts that can inform making an educated guess, with proof points as needed, of feasibility above 3? Feasibility scores of 4 or 5 are key assumptions we wish to make explicit before seeking funding. Without some proof of that, you may be relying too much on intuition, instead of verifiable facts, which is not going to satisfy risk-averse check writers or guarantors. . . your financial model contains assumptions that must be defensible because they are based on real world market conditions and sufficient analytical depth that you know you will achieve those results, plus or minus a modest margin of error. Is that a claim you can honestly make? more

Our process and tools assign a score from 1-5 for FEASIBILITY as follows:

The goal is to gain consensus that your Feasibility Score is at least 4, 4.5 or 5, which means the developer/owner is coachable, that desired funding terms and conditions are within reach, that the pro forma model projects adequate financial returns (IRR), for impact-oriented projects, that there are measurable social and/or environmental benefits as the icing on that cake, and for In3CAP funding, someone is able to bring forward the first 4 out of Six Essentials. We will verify (check assumptions) then expedite such projects, going from Tier 6 or 5 to Tier 1 or 2 as quickly as In3 and the client possibly can.

Score of 3 means these factors are uncertain. We will need to investigate further, but this uncertainty is not to your advantage, so providing evidence to reach Feasibility 4 or 5 is to your advantage.

Score of 2 means deal terms and/or IRR are not workable. If you can repair these, we will listen. Otherwise, we recognize that In3 funding is not for everyone, so we wish you well seeking other options. We usually strive to make a referral in these cases.

Score of 1 means we do not see eye-to-eye (too much of a disconnect, or too far removed from In3’s focus areas) that we must stop.

How to improve your feasibility score

Instructions by Score for  Using Feasibility Scores to secure funding

1. Extremely Unlikely client can perform – project representative not coachable or does not communicate well enough to tell if they have a serious opportunity. 

• “Coachable” definition:  If the client has exhibited signs of being not coachable, and is either too difficult to understand in writing or verbally, or there just rapport, such as the aforementioned disagreement about urgency, perhaps an Affiliate could be inserted to build a bridge? Could also simply be a lack of common language (technical English is not taught in schools … it must be learned “on the job”, typically), which is going to be necessary, eventually just to understand our guidance, coaching or requirements. Note that we have language skills in-house that include Spanish, French, German, Indonesian, and Mandarin. Professional Translation services are available for the rest.
• Recommendations:  First, advise client to add or appoint a team member that can represent their interests to overcome the limitation, and offer to resume discussions with that new party. If they do not have English language competence, ask what is their native language. If we or they can involve someone in this other language, or who can translate during pre-qualification (all materials are to be in English), that make help them become more coachable. Together, the team either delivers the requested information to raise their score (if all goes well) or we just say “no” and explain why, making sure it is clear to them why we are refusing to work with them as is.t

Note: We allocate at most 10-15 minutes per week per prospect to any 1’s. Sometimes it takes multiple interactions to determine if the communication challenges are just part of their learning curve or if there is a deeper issue, inadequacy, or disconnect. We will take initial responsibility, offering generous listening within a judgement-free “safe” zone, but then they either demonstrate communication competence or they’re out. Some will burn this bridge and get labeled “DNR” — Do Not Resuscitate.

On the other hand, In3 Affiliates and other service providers (finders, promoters, advisors) may occasionally recognize a “diamond in the rough” and want to bring forward that opportunity to get the attention and funding it deserves. That’s great. Just be sure to prepare per our requirements (venture capital under a Management Services Agreement following a RAIN assessment or project funding via CAP’s Six Essentials) in order to get traction.

Conclusion:  Unless others can help, Ditch these.

2. Unlikely client will perform, and/or the project itself is marginal or not viable for one or more reasons (e.g., unmitigated commercial risks, or not sufficient profit/ROI, or materials are substandard and client has no ability to make improvements but also cannot afford to hire someone to help).  Recommendations:

• If not sufficiently profitable (under ~5% IRR or unsure of the profitability) – may be able to pivot the project plan or “enhance” this ROI with some effort/coaching from us. Make a judgement call.
• If too early stage – still in seed (idea) stage without a project plan or capabilities/resources to develop the proposal for funding, explain what is required (give samples/examples) and wait for the results.
• If the lead actually has no access to a capital guarantee nor any party that could “sponsor”, get creative. Problem-solve, if you see potential in the other key facets (project financial fundamentals and developer knows what he or she is doing, or is able to hire and/or involve advisors to compensate). First, follow In3 proven protocols to attract a backer/sponsor either as a vendor or other private party with inherent reasons in doing so. Sponsor motivation can be mission-related, charitable, or due to financial upsides of winning a contract to do the work, such as an EPC firm. Ensure that this opportunity to sponsor is pitched properly, which for some leads will mean they should hire you/us to do this for them.

Conclusion:  Repair or Redirect.  Explain what would bring the client’s project up to acceptable standards, and ask that they come back when they have achieved that (otherwise, after coaching, downgrade to a 1 and ignore).

3. Investigate and Interview to explore and clarify (adjust score up or down) as presently there is a modest chance of success, or too much uncertainty, because client’s project is either (any or all of these conditions may apply): 

• Small budget – not much above ~$25 million (below $25m we just say no) – and/or uncertain deal terms (client does not want to sell any equity, for example)
• Uncertain business model or industry – project is not in any of the top 30 industry sectors, include fossil fuels, mining or other extractives, tobacco, pharma drugs, large hydro, conventional (chemical-based) agriculture, weapons, etc.
• Not new construction, or a retrofit / refurbishment / upgrade, so unlikely our monthly draw schedule could work (ask if it does).

Recommendations:  Investigate and explore/clarify the value of the project in relationship to its ability to qualify for funding. Interview the client and/or other experts in the sector. Adjust score (up or down) as more information arrives. Explain to client what would bring the project up to acceptable standards, and ask that they come back when they have achieved that (otherwise, lower the score after a reasonable period of time, or by default, and/or ignore).

Conclusion:  Investigate to adjust up or down. 3’s are temporary. Keep digging.

4. Verify both virtues and issues, as 4’s have a decent Chance of success – a guarantor is in motion or known to be available, with workable deal terms, reasonable IRR and project risk/reward profile.  Some issues or challenges to be addressed.

Recommendation:  Verify to capture and highlight both strengths and any known/potential issues. If you lack the bandwidth or patience or technical/business background to help bring them to a 4.5 or 5 efficiently, consult with other Affiliates, but otherwise proceed to address those challenges in-house once there is a willingness and capability to facilitate a capital guarantee.

Conclusion:  Verify the 4’s.

5. Expedite these, as they have an excellent chance of success: These can be further subdivided as 5A, 5AA, 5B, etc., based on the other criteria.

Recommendation:  Expedite and prioritize to focus your attention on these.  Schedule time with the developers/owners so you don’t let those that score 4 or below distract or slow down rapid progress toward reaching financial closing with these projects, ordered in sequence of who performs as prodded along by our other criteria. Pre-qualify and (if subscribed) track via Zoho or other scoring systems to further sub-categorize who deserves to receive your undivided attention, resources and “quality time”.

Conclusion:  Expedite and fund these!

Summary

• Ditch the 1’s
• Repair the 2’s – Invite/Insist that 2’s Involve someone else from the client’s side (forming a coachable team), and/or adjust their plan fundamentals, to take next steps; otherwise ignore.
• Investigate the 3’s (interview, don’t interrogate) by asking questions to explore/clarify/adjust up or down, in or out. Involve others if the project developer is working in an industry or country/culture outside your expertise. 
• Verify the 4’s – capture their virtues against any known/potential issues.
• Expedite (pre-qualify & fund) the 5’s.

To help remember these shortcuts: DRIVE