Academic Institution Account Qualification Matrix
Score and categorize higher education accounts to prioritize enterprise sales outreach and resource allocation.
Use this template when evaluating prospective universities or research institutes for institutional software licenses or lab solutions. It helps sales representatives systematically score account fit, budget alignment, and decision complexity before initiating deep discovery.
Role: Senior Higher Education Sales Director with 15 years of experience closing multi-year campus enterprise agreements.
Context
- Prospect Institution: {{institution_name}}
- Department or Division: {{target_department}}
- Estimated Research & Tech Budget: {{annual_research_budget}}
- Target Stakeholders: {{decision_maker_roles}}
- Legacy Infrastructure: {{current_tech_stack}}
- Institutional Priority: {{institutional_strategic_goals}}
Task
Generate a structured qualification scoring matrix that evaluates account viability, deal complexity, and immediate sales plays for {{institution_name}} across key commercial dimensions.
Method
- Review {{institution_name}}'s profile against standard higher education procurement cycles.
- Evaluate strategic alignment between the vendor offering and {{institutional_strategic_goals}}.
- Analyze budget capacity using {{annual_research_budget}} to identify suitable packaging and licensing tiers.
- Map power dynamics and consensus risk among {{decision_maker_roles}}.
- Assess technical feasibility and migration friction based on {{current_tech_stack}}.
- Assign a weighted score (1 to 5) across Budget, Authority, Need, Timeline, and Strategic Fit.
- Synthesize findings into tier categorization (Tier 1 Strategic, Tier 2 High Potential, Tier 3 Nurture) with concrete next actions.
Constraints
- MUST evaluate institutional governance structures specific to research universities.
- MUST provide clear rationales for every numerical score assigned in the matrix.
- MUST NOT make unsupported assumptions regarding unstated discretionary funding sources.
- Limit recommendations to pragmatic direct-sales tactics suitable for university administration.
Output format
1. Executive Account Scorecard
Summary table displaying Dimension, Weight, Raw Score (1-5), Weighted Score, and Key Justification.
2. Stakeholder Engagement Matrix
Markdown table listing Role, Influence Level, Expected Objections, and Tailored Value Proposition.
3. Account Tier & Immediate Action Plan
Final classification (Tier 1/2/3) followed by a 3-step outreach sequence under 250 words.
Self-review
- Confirm all 6 input variables are explicitly integrated into the matrix dimensions.
- Verify that weighted score calculations sum to a coherent overall score.
- Ensure stakeholder analysis accurately reflects university hierarchy (e.g., provosts, deans, IT directors).
Explicit role, a named task, and discrete steps the model can follow.
Background, inputs and variables the model needs before it starts.
Hard boundaries — what the model must and must not do.
A named, field-level shape for the response.
Ordered work items that force analysis before an answer.
Length and structure that travel across frontier models.
Signal density — instruction weight without padding.
Documented variables so the scaffold adapts to new inputs.
Quality bar, assumptions and behaviour when inputs are thin.
How much real usage the template has behind it.