Help your contact make a relevant connection. Their experience gives you something useful to discuss; it does not establish the new team's priorities or authority to buy.
Check the reason for the introduction
Ask what the contact has actually observed and whether the other team has expressed an interest. Keep second-hand information labelled.
For example: "The service team has asked how we organised our handover" is a stronger reason to connect than "They probably need your help too."
Check whether anyone from your firm already works with that team or has an open conversation. Agree one owner for the introduction so an existing client relationship does not create competing approaches.
Give your contact a forwardable note
Keep it brief enough to use, and let your contact change it. This example is fictional:
We worked with Alex to review our project handover and agree a clearer responsibility map. You mentioned wanting to review the service-team handover. If useful, I can introduce you so you can compare the questions you are trying to answer and see whether there is a suitable assignment.
Only include the description of the completed work if your client agrees it is accurate and shareable. Leave out confidential findings, internal disagreements and unsupported business results.
Salesforce's consultative-selling guidance describes asking for introductions while continuing to understand each stakeholder's needs. The new conversation still needs its own discovery.
Start a fresh fit assessment
Use a small comparison to keep the original assignment from becoming an automatic template.
| Question | Original team | New team: fictional first-call notes |
|---|---|---|
| Working problem | Ownership between project sales and delivery | Service requests cross two operating teams |
| Useful decision | Agree one handover owner | Decide which requests need a joint review |
| Available evidence | Four recent project records | Examples not yet checked |
| Sponsor | Operations lead | Service manager; approval route unknown |
| Likely work | Interviews and responsibility map | Scope remains to be determined |
The comparison shows useful experience and important differences. The new team's process may require a smaller assignment, a different specialist or no external work at all.
Clarify what can carry across
An existing supplier relationship may simplify some administration. Ask whether it covers the new entity, budget and work. Avoid assuming that an earlier contract or approval automatically extends to another department.
Likewise, a reusable method can help you deliver efficiently, while the new team's documents and decisions still need their own assessment. Price and scope the actual work rather than offering a duplicated project under a familiar name.
Fictional continuation: checking the old proposal. Suppose the service manager now asks Alex to “use the same proposal for our unit.” Alex opens the earlier proposal and checks its working assumptions against the new service material before agreeing to the commission.
| Assumption in the earlier proposal | Current evidence for the service team | Effect on the new proposal |
|---|---|---|
| The blank responsibility-map format and interview prompts support the review | The two process owners can use those headings to explain the service-request route | Keep the blank working structure. Do not carry the earlier findings into the new map. |
| The output should identify one project-handover owner | In the supplied examples, S-14 stays with the service team, S-21 needs both teams and S-29 is an unresolved exception | Replace that output with a decision sheet showing which requests need joint review and how an exception is referred. Do not assume one owner answers the new question. |
| Four recent project records provide the material for the review | The new packet contains the current service-routing note and S-14, S-21 and S-29; the two process owners confirm what happened in those examples | Name this packet as the input for the bounded review. The earlier project records are not evidence of this unit’s process. These examples do not establish how often each situation occurs. |
| The operations lead can review the handover map | The service manager and the second-team process owner confirm they can review their respective steps together | Include one joint walkthrough of the decision sheet with those two reviewers. Keep purchasing approval separate from this working review. |
Decision: Alex prepares a fresh proposal for that limited service-request review: one decision sheet covering the three supplied cases and one joint walkthrough. The reusable format survives; the old deliverable, input assumptions and review arrangement do not. The fee, timing and required purchasing confirmations must be set for this assignment. Alex does not accept a new commission on the strength of the earlier proposal.
For your own reuse check, record: old assumption → current evidence for this unit → keep, revise or hold → proposal consequence. If a material input or reviewer is still unknown, leave that item on hold. If the deliverable is still unclear, use the proposal-readiness check before making a scope or fee promise.
Return a useful next step
If there is a relevant task, send a short summary of the new team's question, proposed output and missing decisions. Keep the introducing contact informed only as agreed; they do not need every detail of a separate team's discussion.
If the fit is weak, thank both people and close the conversation clearly. A respectful introduction should leave the client confident that connecting you with a colleague will lead to a useful assessment rather than an assumed sale.