“We need to improve lead handling” is too broad to act on. It can lead to another training session, a CRM clean-up or a new response-time target without showing where the real problem sits. A useful review follows actual enquiries. It looks at what entered the business, what happened next, what the customer saw and what managers could see.

Begin with a sample, not a theory

Select 20 to 30 enquiries from a recent period. Include different sources, locations, team members and outcomes. Include wins, losses, quiet leads and enquiries still marked open.

Averages can hide variation. A median response time may look acceptable while weekend enquiries wait a day, one branch performs differently or high-intent leads are mixed with low-intent downloads. The sample gives the numbers a story.

Map the real path

For each enquiry, note the source, stated need, date and time received, first automated acknowledgement, first meaningful response, owner, next action, follow-up contacts, stage changes and final outcome.

Then mark every hand-off. Where did responsibility move from a website or portal to a central team, from marketing to sales, or from one person to another? Handoffs are not automatically bad. Unclear handoffs are.

Compare the customer-facing promise with the experience. If the website promises a call today, did one happen? If the form asks for detail, was that detail visible to the person replying?

Review five practical areas

Source: Was the channel and customer intent captured accurately? Speed: How long did a meaningful response take, including outside office hours? Script: Did the first reply answer the need, build confidence and propose a next step? Sequence: What happened after the first contact, and when did follow-up stop? Scoreboard: Could managers see delay, inactivity and missing ownership before the opportunity was lost?

These five lenses form Break.Beat’s 5S diagnostic. The language is less important than the discipline of checking the whole system rather than one department.

Separate known facts from assumptions

A good review labels evidence carefully. “No response after three contacts” is visible. “Not serious” is an inference unless the customer said so. “Poor lead” may be an opinion. “Invalid number” is a fact.

This distinction improves both coaching and reporting. It also reduces the temptation to blame marketing, sales or the customer before the path has been examined.

Turn findings into a small number of decisions

Do not finish with a list of 40 observations. Group repeated problems and choose the few changes most likely to reduce leakage.

Typical decisions include one routing rule, one response standard, one first-reply template, one ownership definition, one follow-up sequence and one weekly review. Each decision needs an owner, start date and measure.

The purpose of the review is not to describe the system more elegantly. It is to make the next useful behaviour clear.

A practical checklist

  • Sample includes wins, losses, quiet and open enquiries.
  • Timestamps distinguish acknowledgement from meaningful response.
  • Every hand-off is visible.
  • The first reply is reviewed for usefulness, not just speed.
  • Each active opportunity has an owner and next action.
  • Lost reasons distinguish fact from inference.
  • Actions are prioritised, owned and reviewable.

What to do next

Start with a small evidence review rather than a large change programme. Choose a recent sample, follow the complete enquiry history and agree the first change that will improve response, follow-up, ownership or visibility. The Lead Leakage Scorecard is the proportionate next step when the problem is visible but the main leakage point is not yet clear.

Sources and further reading

• McKinsey: From touchpoints to journeys

• Salesforce: State of Sales

• Break.Beat: The first touch is not admin. It is where trust starts.

Evidence note: External findings support specific points and should not be treated as universal performance standards. The business’s own enquiry data should determine priorities.

FAQs

How many enquiries should we review?

Twenty to 30 usually gives a useful first picture. Use a larger sample where volumes, channels or branches vary widely.

Should we use CRM reports or read individual records?

Use both. Reports show patterns; individual records explain what the pattern may mean.

Who should take part?

Include people from marketing, sales or service, operations and whoever owns the CRM or reporting process.

How often should the review happen?

Run a deeper diagnostic periodically, then review a small set of operational measures every week.

What should the output look like?

A leakage map, evidence summary, priority actions, owners and a simple review rhythm.