A two-tier scoring model separates the question of how engaged is this lead? (marketing signal) from how good is this project fit? (sales judgment). The two tiers operate at different stages of the pipeline and use different inputs, but together they give sales leadership a consistent, reportable basis for prioritizing effort and capacity.
This pattern emerged from work with [1], where the need to scale from an $8–12M to a $20–30M company required moving from intuition-based deal selection to a structured, defensible scoring process.
Stage: Lead object, pre-conversion
Owner: Marketing / automated
Purpose: Measure marketing engagement and intent signals
Lead scoring at this tier is fully automated and driven by behavioral data captured in Pardot. It answers: Is this person paying attention to us?
| Signal | Example |
|---|---|
| Website activity | Page visits, time on site, return visits |
| Email engagement | Opens, clicks, replies |
| Form fills | Content downloads, contact requests |
| Campaign response | Ad clicks, event registrations |
"The lead scoring is more of — is this somebody who knows about us, is interested about us — it's more of a sales and marketing scoring than the specific project scoring."
— Karly Oykhman, Quarra Stone working session
Stage: Opportunity object, post-conversion
Owner: Sales rep / sales leadership
Purpose: Evaluate project and client fit against strategic criteria
Once a lead converts to an opportunity, a manual scoring process evaluates whether the project itself is worth pursuing. This tier answers: Should we invest production capacity in this deal?
Scoring criteria should be defined in a client-specific matrix. For Quarra Stone, the existing qualifier matrix (developed with executive coach Dennis) covers dimensions including:
| Dimension | Notes |
|---|---|
| Project timeline / urgency | 6–24 month BD cycle is typical; short timelines may indicate poor fit |
| Project complexity | Alignment with production capabilities |
| Client type | Decision-maker vs. influencer; COG vs. specifier |
| Location | Proximity to sales territory; travel feasibility |
| Revenue tier | Does the project size justify capacity allocation? |
"If you sell the wrong jobs and you absorb your machine capacity… you can't get to where you need to in a year because you've absorbed your capacity on too many opportunities that are the wrong kind of value tier."
— Lincoln Durham (lldurham), Quarra Stone
Lead enters system
│
▼
[Tier 1: Pardot Lead Score]
Automated engagement scoring
High score → surfaces for faster review
│
▼
Manual assignment by sales leadership
(lldurham reviews and assigns based on rep fit + bandwidth)
│
▼
Lead converts → Opportunity created
│
▼
[Tier 2: Salesforce Opportunity Score]
Manual project-fit scoring via matrix
Score informs pursuit decision + capacity planning
The two tiers are intentionally decoupled. A lead can have a high Pardot score (very engaged) but score poorly on project fit (wrong timeline, wrong complexity). Keeping the scores separate prevents marketing enthusiasm from overriding strategic deal selection.