The Compass business map
Locate the work. Then compare the possible projects.
The map gives every conversation a place in the business. Choose a cell to see three fictional projects, then inspect the separate rubric that compares which small test might deserve attention. The numbers are assumptions for discussion; the owner decides.
Not sure where to start? Start with your business — a short free exercise for owners who have not chosen a problem yet.
Explore the business map and compare projects
Use arrow keys to move between cells; Home and End move to the first or last column.
Illustrative company — current maturity, not an assessment of your business.
- 0 None — The capability does not exist in a dependable form in this area.
- 1 Individual — An individual can perform it, often using personal knowledge or tools.
- 2 Approved — The organization has accepted a method, tool, or policy.
- 3 Integrated — The capability is part of the normal workflow.
- 4 Connected — Relevant data and work are coordinated across systems or teams.
- 5 AI-native — Learning, generation, prediction, or intelligent action is fundamental to how the capability operates.
Level 2 or 3 can be the right destination. Higher is not automatically better; choose the maturity the business needs.
The ladder grades how the work runs, not how much AI is in it. A documented invoicing checklist that is used routinely, with a named person responsible, may be a 3 Integrated even though no AI is involved. The same process, never observed, stays unknown rather than 0.
Unknown is not 0. If nobody has observed how the work actually runs, leave the cell blank or mark it unknown until there is evidence. A 0 is a finding: no dependable capability exists here.
Generate Revenue × Process
Generate Revenue: How the company creates demand, wins business, prices, sells, and collects.
Process: The way work moves, including policy, handoffs, exceptions, and delay.
Illustrative current maturity: 2 Approved. The example company follows an accepted sales process, although execution still depends on people.
Maturity describes how this work runs today. The separate rubric compares possible projects.
Selected cell Generate Revenue by Process. Three candidate projects are shown for comparison.
Three illustrative candidates for this cell
Follow up on open quotes should go first as a small test on these assumptions.
It leads the alternatives on adoption friction 5/5 because it fits the team’s current quote queue while people retain every sales decision; and time to evidence 5/5 because a bounded backlog can reveal response changes quickly and cheaply. Its 22/25 result is RUN — THIS WEEK; the owner still decides whether it proceeds.
On a narrow screen, scroll the comparison table sideways. Project names remain visible.
| Project | Business impact | Likelihood of success | Adoption friction | Time to evidence | Cost & risk | Total | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Follow up on open quotesAssumptions and tradeoffsAssumed evidence: Assumes a familiar follow-up workflow and usable current quote records. Tradeoff: A small test can expose missed follow-up quickly without changing who owns the sale. What could change it: Lower record quality or weak response lift would reduce likelihood; a clean backlog and measurable response would strengthen it. Rule used: 22 is 21 or more. | 4/5Open quotes suggest meaningful near-term revenue may be recoverable, although the outcome is unmeasured. | 4/5Current quote records make missed follow-up identifiable if those records are usable. | 5/5It fits the team’s current quote queue while people retain every sales decision. | 5/5A bounded backlog can reveal response changes quickly and cheaply. | 4/5Existing records keep the test contained; people still control every customer action. | 22/25 | RUN — THIS WEEK |
Prepare first-draft quotesAssumptions and tradeoffsAssumed evidence: Assumes repeatable quote patterns, with a person reviewing every draft. Tradeoff: Drafting may save time, but review and adoption effort are higher than for follow-up. What could change it: Frequent exceptions or slow review would lower adoption and time-to-evidence ratings. Rule used: 18 is between 17 and 20. | 4/5Faster first drafts could materially shorten quote turnaround if the patterns hold. | 4/5Repeatable quote patterns provide a credible starting point, subject to human review. | 3/5Review and training are needed before every draft can be trusted. | 4/5Draft quality and review time can be checked on a small sample. | 3/5Human review limits exposure, but setup and correction effort remain meaningful. | 18/25 | RUN — 2 WEEKS |
Compare pricing options for complex quotesAssumptions and tradeoffsAssumed evidence: Assumes historical pricing and outcome records are incomplete but potentially useful. Tradeoff: The theoretical upside is larger, while evidence and confidence are weaker. People retain every pricing decision. What could change it: Reliable margin and win-loss history would raise likelihood; poor comparability would keep this back. Rule used: 15 is between 13 and 16 and business impact is at least 4. | 5/5Complex pricing decisions could materially affect margin and wins if the history supports comparison. | 2/5Incomplete pricing and outcome records make useful comparisons uncertain. | 2/5Pricing judgments need explanation and remain entirely human-owned. | 3/5A retrospective sample is possible, but comparable outcomes may take time. | 3/5A bounded analysis limits exposure, while pricing errors still carry material risk. | 15/25 | INVEST AFTER EVIDENCE |
How to read the rubric: all five ratings are whole numbers from 0–5 and higher is favorable. Business impact measures the outcome at stake; likelihood reflects confidence; adoption friction is 5 when adoption is easy and 0 when the company cannot absorb it; time to evidence is 5 when credible evidence arrives quickly and cheaply; cost & risk is 5 when favorable.
The arithmetic: impact 0 or adoption 0 means NOT YET. Otherwise, 21–25 is RUN — THIS WEEK; 17–20 is RUN — 2 WEEKS; 13–16 with impact at least 4 is INVEST AFTER EVIDENCE; everything else is NOT YET. These fictional ratings compare possible tests. They are not verified findings, guaranteed gains or an owner’s decision.