Account research for industrial suppliers selling into Ireland.

Define the rules with the industrial ideal-customer-profile guide and brief worksheet. If starting from an authorised seed profile, use the lookalike account comparison guide.

For a worked discovery-to-decision process, follow the Irish manufacturing account-list guide.

See how the brief works for pump and flow-control supplier research.

Start with the product or service range and the applications you want to explore. Then agree:

• Target industries, territory and relevant company characteristics.
• Whether the research unit is a company or an individual facility.
• The route to market: operators, OEMs, integrators or contractors, where relevant.
• Existing accounts, channel conflicts and other exclusions.
• The evidence needed to accept a record and the questions that can remain open.

Sector membership alone is not evidence of installed equipment, technical suitability or a current requirement.

The field set is agreed for the brief. A useful account record makes the following inspectable:

• Identity: the company and, if in scope, the specific site.
• Fit: industry, territory and the reason it matches the written criteria.
• Evidence: source references and the relevant publication and review dates.
• Class: industry-matched or opportunity-signal, with project research status kept separate.
• Limits: exclusions, uncertainty and the next verification question.

Source access and customer-use permissions determine which evidence can accompany an output. A linked source is not, by itself, permission to redistribute its content.

See the editable example fields

Industry-matched leads (Look Alike) meet the agreed profile without requiring an active or upcoming project. The record distinguishes a project search that was not required from a bounded review that found no qualifying signal. Neither means that no project exists.

Opportunity-signal leads meet the fit rules and have a relevant, evidenced project or development. Their brief separates the observed fact, commercial interpretation and unknowns.

We aim for 90% industry-matched and 10% opportunity-signal leads. This is a target, not a guaranteed mix. Exact counts, class treatment and deliverables are agreed in writing.

Compare the research classes · See what project research adds

In our fictional example, a manufacturer meets a brief for Irish food-and-beverage production businesses. It is accepted for account relevance without a current project assessment. A residential pump retailer is rejected because it does not meet the required business type—even though its catalogue mentions pumps.

Neither decision establishes equipment suitability or demand. The written profile determines the fit decision.

Inspect the accepted and rejected examples

The research method checks identity, material fit facts, dates, duplicates and exclusions. Unsupported or conflicting material claims remain open for review rather than being converted into a pass. Opportunity-signal records need separate evidence for the signal and its relevance.

Review cadence, acceptance rules and any correction or replacement terms are agreed for the work. There is no standard turnaround or replacement window promised on this page.

Choose the right tool for the job in our industrial sales research resource library: discovery, customer routes, batch review, maintenance and example records.

Read the research method

Checking a supplied list? Audit a fictional prospect batch for company counts, duplicates and unresolved evidence before accepting its handoff.

Maintaining an existing shortlist? See when to refresh an industrial prospect list, with worked retain, hold, correct and remove decisions and a blank review log.

Choose how to obtain and maintain your target-account base, not just who supplies a list. Choosing an approach does not establish a project, a reachable contact or buying intent. Compare them against the same brief:

Scope specificity

Licensed platform: test actual territory and category coverage. In-house: translate your application knowledge into repeatable criteria. Analyst brief: agree the narrow question and exclusions before research starts.

Record granularity

Licensed platform: check whether records represent groups, companies, sites or projects. In-house: choose identifiers and deduplicate consistently. Analyst brief: specify the counting unit, required fields and treatment of multiple sites.

Evidence traceability

Licensed platform: inspect source visibility and dates in sample records. In-house: retain references and separate observations from interpretation. Analyst brief: request source-supported reasons, review dates and explicit unknowns in the deliverable.

Refresh burden

Licensed platform: establish what updates cover and whether exports stay current. In-house: assign an owner and review cadence. Analyst brief: agree a dated handover; later refresh work is a separate scope unless included.

Operator effort

Licensed platform: budget time for filtering, verification and integration. In-house: reserve research and peer-review capacity alongside sales work. Analyst brief: retain time to brief the analyst, challenge findings and resolve open questions.

Permitted use

Licensed platform: check export, sharing and reuse terms. In-house: review permissions for every public or licensed source. Analyst brief: agree customer-use rights and evidence-sharing limits. Buying access or analysis does not automatically permit resale or unrestricted reuse.

Put your own effort against the brief.

Download the research-effort worksheet (CSV) to record your own counts, stage-by-stage person-hours, QA/rework and optional internal cost assumptions. Compare approaches against the same brief, counting unit and review period. Include briefing, review and handover effort even when research is outsourced.

All input values start blank. Unknown is not zero; enter zero only when confirmed. Calculation instructions are plain text, not spreadsheet formulas. Keep the file locally; there is nothing to submit. This is an internal-effort aid, not a complete price comparison or savings estimate.

Fictional scenario: a narrow Irish supplier brief

A fictional conveyor-component supplier wants to identify Irish businesses that build food-packaging machinery. Exclude distributors without machinery-building activity, service-only firms and existing customers. Count each company once, recording the Irish operating site supporting its relevance. Require sources for identity, Irish operations and machinery-building activity, with review dates; installed components, technical suitability and current demand remain unknown.

For this bounded first review, a scoped analyst brief may fit if the supplier lacks research time but can review findings. An in-house workflow may fit better if a knowledgeable employee can own both the initial work and maintenance. A licensed platform is worth evaluating if sample records demonstrate the niche and record detail needed—not merely a broad industry label.

If the brief changes to ongoing project and plant coverage across several territories, assess licensed access plus internal filtering or a hybrid with an analyst, subject to source-use terms. The changed workload, not a universal winner, drives that choice.

Before choosing, request records selected against an explained coverage frame, coverage gaps, deliverable fields, update responsibilities and permitted uses. Use our research method, fictional sample and manufacturing guide to frame that review. Request a scoped comparison and quote; coverage and deliverables remain subject to written agreement.

A targeting brief says which companies belong. An acceptance specification says what you must be able to inspect, import, challenge and retain. Use the same questions for an internal team, a licensed tool or commissioned research; none is the default winner.

Bring your existing industrial ICP brief and account field template. This module adds delivery and responsibility questions, not another targeting exercise or effort estimate.

Write a testable delivery specification

Acceptance: what exactly will the buyer approve?

Which brief and field-dictionary versions govern the delivery? Who can accept it, and is review of every record or a buyer-agreed sample required? Which missing fields block acceptance? Agree separate treatment for accepted accounts, unresolved candidates, duplicates and rejected rows; do not let a delivered row total stand in for an accepted-company count.

Export: what must survive the handover?

Ask for a non-sensitive test file in the proposed format. Can your intended import preserve company and site identifiers, leading zeros, source references, review dates, explicit unknowns and linked-site relationships? How will you reconcile the received file with the approved version? Specify an encoding, field map and version label rather than assuming a dashboard view and an export contain the same detail.

Evidence: what can the reviewer actually inspect?

For each material field, agree the reference needed to challenge it and the permitted evidence format. Will a reviewer receive a link, an original research note or an authorised extract? What happens if access is unavailable or a link changes? Ask for a permitted verification route; do not require copied source content regardless of rights.

Correction: what happens when the test fails?

Agree how to report a disputed row, who investigates it, how revisions are identified and what constitutes completion. Distinguish a correction against the agreed brief from a new research request or a later change in circumstances. Set any review window and remedies in writing; this checklist supplies no default allowance or deadline.

Responsibility: who owns the next decision?

Name internal roles for acceptance, import, unresolved questions, rights review and later maintenance. If several parties contribute, who resolves a disagreement and records the decision? Operational ownership is not the same as intellectual-property ownership or permission to reuse data.

Rights and exit: what may each party keep and do?

Ask separately about ownership of buyer-supplied inputs, original analysis, the compiled deliverable and third-party material. For each, confirm the intended recipients, CRM use, internal sharing, customer-facing use and any onward distribution. What survives completion or subscription expiry, what must be removed, and who records the applicable agreement and exceptions? Request written confirmation; do not treat payment, download access or rewritten wording as permission.

Compare three fictional working arrangements

Wholly fictional scenarios, not customer cases or vendor evaluations. Each starts with the same imagined brief: company-level research on machinery builders operating in the Republic of Ireland. The targeting rules are already agreed; personal contacts and outreach are outside scope. The question is whether the proposed handover can meet the buyer's written tests.

In-house: an internal analyst hands research to sales operations

The fictional buyer wants a method another employee can maintain. Ask: can a colleague reproduce the acceptance decision using the approved brief and permitted evidence? Who reviews disputed records if the original analyst is unavailable? Which source-use checks apply to the team's own notes and retained extracts? Can the receiving team import a versioned test file without losing the evidence trail?

Decision checkpoint: ask for a documented handover and a second-role review. If these remain unresolved, record the gap rather than assuming either that internal work is inadequate or that being internal clears rights.

Licensed tool: an authorised user prepares an export for an internal CRM

The fictional buyer wants to use a tool within its agreed licence. Ask: which required fields and relationships are available in the actual export, and under which access terms? May the intended internal recipients use the exported material? What can remain usable after access ends? Who carries corrections into the CRM, and what evidence will remain reviewable outside the tool?

Decision checkpoint: inspect an authorised test export and the applicable agreement together. A missing answer calls for confirmation; it is not evidence that every tool has that limitation or that commissioned research avoids it.

Commissioned research: a written brief ends in a dated handover

The fictional buyer wants a bounded assignment it can accept and maintain. Ask: which files, field definitions, unresolved-question log and permitted evidence are included? Who accepts or disputes delivery? Which original outputs may the buyer edit or share, and which source materials remain restricted? What correction work is included, and who owns refresh decisions after completion?

Decision checkpoint: agree a test deliverable, acceptance process and rights schedule before committing. A bespoke brief alone does not settle export usability, ownership, source permissions or future maintenance.

Try the field map before agreeing the handover.

Use this original, vendor-neutral fictional transport test alongside acceptance-checklist items A05 and X01–X04. It tests values and relationships, not whether a company qualifies. The deliberately corrupt example is teaching data, not a real provider failure.

Download the before CSV, expected after CSV, field-map worksheet, prepared corrupt CSV and expected decisions. Follow the local test instructions below; use a pristine copy and explicitly import every field as text with UTF-8 encoding.

Rename the headers using the worksheet, export and reopen, then compare by row ID. Expect two companies and three facilities, with two facilities linked to company 0007 and one operator unknown. Keep leading zeros, explicit unknowns, empty optional notes, Unicode, quoted commas and version labels intact. Actual source-review dates stay empty; 2001-02-03 is a clearly labelled date-format probe, never evidence of a real review.

The prepared corrupt file contains seven changed cells; the answer key identifies the exact values to challenge. A local parser/writer roundtrip passed, but no spreadsheet application or CRM was tested. Resolve transport discrepancies and record a review role; passing this exercise does not approve a delivery, establish source rights or authorise outreach. Keep completed files locally; there is nothing to submit.

Run the local transport exercise

1. Keep pristine copies. Use the existing acceptance checklist for agreement and rights questions; cross-reference A05 and X01–X04 instead of completing a second agreement checklist. Choose a local, isolated test copy with no production connections. Do not submit real research or connect a CRM for this exercise.
2. Import the before CSV through a text-import dialogue, selecting UTF-8, comma separator and double-quote text qualifier. Explicitly choose TEXT for every column before loading, including IDs and the synthetic date probe. Merely quoting a numeric-looking ID in CSV does not set its type. Do not double-click and trust automatic detection. If your application cannot preserve the values, stop and record the limitation.
3. Use the field-map worksheet. The proposed target names describe this educational fixture, not a universal CRM schema. Apply the listed header renames to a working copy; do not change the values. Record the actual receiving fields and a role label. Do not replace the existing identity workbook or account dictionary.
4. Save the working copy as UTF-8 comma-separated CSV and reopen it through the same explicit text-import route. Compare the parsed cells against after-expected by handover_record_id, not visual row position. Check all five rows and all fourteen fields. Reordering rows or using valid alternative CSV quoting is not a semantic defect; a byte checksum can change without a field change. Use file hashes to identify the pristine downloads, not to judge semantically equivalent exports.
5. Reconcile distinct entities: two company rows (0007 and 0008), three facility rows (0101, 0102, 0103). Facilities 0101 and 0102 link to company 0007. Facility 0103 has an empty parent plus explicit unknown relationship. Company 0008 has no linked site in this fixture; that does not prove it operates no site. Five transported rows are not five companies or five accepted accounts.
6. Preserve exact text IDs and leading zeros. Preserve unknown as literal unknown; it is not empty or a negative finding. Company rows have an empty parent with not_applicable; the unlinked facility has an empty parent with unknown. Optional note cells may be empty. Source review dates are empty with not_reviewed_in_fixture because no real source was reviewed.
7. The reviewed_date_test_value cell contains 2001-02-03 ONLY as synthetic date-format text. It is not an actual review date, a freshness claim or a file creation date. Never copy it into source_reviewed_at. Retain the brief, dictionary and export labels independently. Preserve accents, non-Latin characters, commas and embedded double quotes in the two nonempty notes.
8. Separately compare the prepared corrupt file to after-expected. Expect seven changed cells, not seven bad rows. Consult the answer key: zero loss, a wrong but existing parent, unknown erased, ambiguous date conversion, export-version drift, brief drift and Unicode loss. Every discrepancy calls for hold_transport_review in this exercise. Do not quietly repair a received real file or infer an ID from its display; request a traceable correction against the original approved values.
9. Record the application/version, import settings, file labels, observed cells, reviewer role and local decision. Passing this exercise only demonstrates the particular transport path you actually tested. Rights, evidence review, acceptance authority, real application compatibility and the buyer's blocking items remain separate gates. Keep completed files locally; nothing is submitted here.

Schema boundary: this fixture has its own field map. Blank identity-workbook sheets use record_context and evidence_statement; legacy identity CSVs use fiction_label and invented_statement. This is not a tested import of that workbook. Any connection requires its own explicit map and semantic review. All new fixture data is original teaching material, not a licence to use third-party records.

Use the blank acceptance checklist

Download the blank research acceptance checklist (CSV). Use one local copy per proposed arrangement, with the same brief version. Question and guidance cells are supplied; all answer, evidence, role, status and decision-date cells start blank. Record unknowns explicitly, not as automatic passes. Use role labels rather than personal details.

Open as UTF-8 and preserve identifiers as text. There are no formulas, default scores, prices or acceptance thresholds. Before deciding, resolve every buyer-designated blocking item; log any non-blocking exception with an authorised role and review trigger. The checklist supports a written agreement, not automatic acceptance or legal clearance. Keep completed files locally; there is nothing to submit here.

Apply the agreed row-by-row checks after receipt. This specification does not include personal contacts by default, authorise outreach or grant source reuse rights. Scope, deliverables and terms remain subject to written agreement.

A sample can show how a record is written without testing the work you will receive. Before treating a clean demonstration as a buying decision, ask: who selected these companies, from which dated frame, and what was not eligible for selection?

Original buyer worksheet, not a statistical acceptance plan. Define the coverage frame as the versioned list from which companies could be selected—not the entire addressable market. Record its inclusion rules and known omissions. Count distinct company IDs, not sites, spreadsheet rows or repeated appearances across samples. Unknown frame size stays unknown; it is not zero.

1. Freeze the comparison. Use the same brief, frame version and evidence requirements. Record who selected each set, the selection rule, any pre-screening, and every substituted row. Keep a removed selection and its reason in the trail rather than silently substituting a cleaner row.
2. Compare what was selected with what was available. Group the frame by a decision-relevant condition fixed before selection. In this exercise, that condition is evidence complexity. Count frame companies, selected companies and unselected companies in each group. A missing group is a question to investigate, not proof that its companies fail.
3. Separate three denominators. Selected companies describe the sample; companies actually reviewed describe the observed findings; the separately identified production batch is the subject of a later acceptance decision. Never divide sample passes by production rows or treat unreviewed selections as passes.

The invented frame and brief

SAMPLE-FRAME-01-v1 is only the twelve invented companies in the CSV, not an actual market census. SAMPLE-BRIEF-01-v1 seeks companies manufacturing complete packaging machinery at a production facility in the Republic of Ireland, excluding resale-only businesses and existing accounts. For this exercise, a pass requires resolved identity, qualifying activity/location, exclusion checks and permitted intended use; an unresolved required fact means hold. Identities are stipulated distinct and all unmentioned gates are stipulated met. No signal, person, equipment suitability or buying intent is established.

A selects all four straightforward cases. B selects the two lowest company IDs from each predefined group. Neither set substitutes a previously selected row. In a real review, record an actual frame cutoff and explain the selection rule; the fictional frame here is undated.

Wholly fictional comparison: the worksheet defines twelve distinct invented companies: four with straightforward evidence, four with multiple-site attribution and four with conflicting activity descriptions. Vendor showcase A deliberately selects the four straightforward cases. Buyer challenge B deliberately selects two from each group. A has four exercise passes; B has two passes and four holds. Neither set is random or claimed representative. The difference reflects which cases were tested, not a measured vendor accuracy difference. Two companies appear in both sets; do not add the sample totals to claim ten distinct companies tested.

Download the fictional sample-comparison worksheet (CSV). Each row is one invented company in the defined frame. Filter selection flags, count distinct IDs and inspect the unsampled groups. The CSV includes blank local note and next-question fields; instructions are in the comparison instructions below. All evidence conditions and review outcomes are stipulated; no real company or source records are supplied.

A demonstration pass is not production acceptance. For this exercise the production batch is not supplied and acceptance is not assessed. Before real delivery, agree the batch/version, review unit, required checks, reviewer role, treatment of failures and unresolved rows, and whether review covers every record or an expressly agreed sample under the handover specification. A deliberately selected challenge set can expose untested work; it cannot authorise acceptance of an unseen batch. This manual exercise does not specify the procedure or authority for your later delivery decision.

No extrapolated accuracy, population coverage, confidence interval or guaranteed outcome follows from these counts. The worksheet does not validate source rights, technical fit, buyer intent or contact permission. Keep completed copies locally; there is no upload or submission.

Reproduce the comparison

Import as UTF-8 and keep company IDs as text. One row is one company, not a facility. Filter each selection flag and count distinct IDs. The groups are mutually exclusive by construction. Findings use only rows marked reviewed; not_reviewed is neither a pass nor a failure. Keep source/date cells blank because these are invented conditions, not real evidence.

Straightforward evidence

4 frame companies; A selects 4 and leaves 0 unselected; B selects 2 and leaves 2 unselected.

Multiple-site attribution

4 frame companies; A selects 0 and leaves 4 unselected; B selects 2 and leaves 2 unselected.

Conflicting activity

4 frame companies; A selects 0 and leaves 4 unselected; B selects 2 and leaves 2 unselected.

Answer check: A selects/reviews 4 companies; B selects/reviews 6. Their overlap is 2 and their union 8; 4 companies are reviewed in neither set. These are fixture counts, not quality estimates. The two sets differ in both size and composition, so do not infer a vendor effect.

Complete the blank local_comparison_note and local_next_question cells. For multiple-site cases, ask what permitted evidence would connect the qualifying Irish operation to the resolved company. For conflicting activity, ask what would resolve the competing descriptions. A leaves both kinds of difficulty untested; B exposes unresolved work. That does not establish the quality of unreviewed companies or approve an unseen production batch.

Are contacts included?

Not by default. This page describes company-level accounts. Named-person research and contact fields remain unagreed unless separately scoped and authorised with the required source, privacy and data controls. Outreach is a separate scope.

Can an account qualify without a project?

Yes. An industry-matched account can meet the written profile without a project signal. It is not automatically a marketing-qualified lead or a high-intent buyer.

Which territories can I request?

Ireland is the current focus. You can state other preferences in the quote request; coverage is assessed before any commitment.

How are deliverables agreed?

In writing: record unit, fields, sources, counts, class mix, timing, price and acceptance terms. A quote request does not book a package or guarantee coverage.

Request a quote