Business Development Foundations and Opportunity Selection · Lesson 3

Market and Account Research: Building Evidence

5 min read

Lesson objectives

Frame a research question linked to a business-development decision rather than collecting information without purpose.
Distinguish secondary and primary evidence, facts, inferences and unknowns.
Build an evidence log and use it to frame relevant discovery.

Start with the decision you want to improve, not the search engine

Business-development research is not the collection of the largest possible amount of information; it is the reduction of uncertainty relevant to a commercial decision. Before opening sources, write the decision question: “Is this segment worth five discovery interviews?”, “Is this account a fit now?”, or “Does this partnership solve a real access barrier?” Then state what would need to be true to advance and what evidence could support or weaken that belief. This prevents research from becoming a long dossier that changes no decision.

The U.S. International Trade Administration’s market-research guidance, written in an export context, illustrates a structured process that examines demand, competition and conditions and can combine secondary sources with primary research. Here we use only that transferable research logic; we do not assume every learner exports or that country-specific details apply. The useful principle is to build an initial picture from available sources, then use appropriate primary contact to test questions published sources cannot answer.

Evidence type	Example	What it can tell you	Limit
Secondary source	Official site or published report	Builds context and surfaces signals	May be broad and does not prove problem priority inside a specific account.
Primary evidence	Discovery interview or documented observation	Tests a problem or process directly	May be affected by small sample size or question framing.
Inference	Linking several signals to a hypothesis	Guides the next question	Is not a fact until sufficiently tested.

Separate facts, inferences and unknowns

Use a simple evidence log. For each hypothesis record: the claim, source or observation method, access date, whether it is fact or inference, a descriptive confidence level, and the next question that could change the decision. Do not turn confidence into false numerical precision; high/medium/low can work if defined. Most importantly, add a reversal condition: what evidence would make us lower the opportunity’s priority or stop? This protects the team from searching only for confirmation.

Turn research into discovery questions, not spam

When research reveals an important gap, the next step is often a concise, relevant question rather than a mass untailored pitch. Example: “We saw that you are expanding operational locations. How do you currently handle onboarding across sites?” The question creates room to understand the process without claiming you already know their problem. Use an appropriate channel and respect applicable privacy and communication rules in your environment rather than harvesting addresses or sending high-volume unsolicited messages.

Exercise

Exercise 2: create a three-row evidence log for a fictional opportunity. Each row must include the claim, source, fact/inference classification, descriptive confidence level, and what could change your decision. Make at least one row evidence that weakens rather than supports the opportunity.

Check your answer

Guided answer: (1) “the account announced two new locations” — official source — fact — high confidence — if expansion is cancelled, priority changes. (2) “onboarding may become harder” — inference — low confidence — discovery can support or reject it. (3) “the team already uses a unified platform and reports high satisfaction” — documented interview — case-level fact — medium confidence — if repeated across multiple relevant roles, the opportunity may be deprioritized. A good log accepts weakening evidence too.

Lesson summary

Good research reduces specific uncertainty, separates fact from inference, matches sources to claims, and turns gaps into discovery questions.