The site
Owned, under offer subject to planning, or still being looked for. Three completely different projects, and the enquiry form treats them as one.
Architecture, design and surveying
Most enquiries you meet for free were never buildable
A message arrives with an idea in it and nothing else. No site status, no tested budget, no date, and no way to tell it apart from the one that turns into a staged fee. You give an hour to both.
Not open yet. Ours scores your own marketing rather than a project, and it names where your leads are being lost.
Before
Hi, we are thinking about extending. Could we have a chat?
After
Site owned. One refusal on record. Funds in place. Wants to start in spring.
Where they come from
Your portfolio does the selling and none of the qualifying
Referral, the work on your site, and whoever found you through a planning portal. Three sources of leads, one contact form, and nothing on it that says anything about the project.
Referral at least comes with a recommendation attached. Portfolio traffic comes with an aesthetic preference, which is not the same as a project. Portal traffic comes with an address and a postcode and nothing you can act on.
None of that is a traffic problem. The work arrives. Any spend you add on top of it simply widens a queue nobody is sorting.
Nobody in this sector is short of enquiries. They are short of enquiries worth an hour.
What the form never asks
Four things decide whether a project is real. Your form asks none.
Every one of them is answerable in a sentence by anyone who has a genuine project, and unanswerable by anyone who does not. That is exactly what a qualifying question is for.
The planning position
Nothing submitted, pre-application advice taken, or a refusal already on record. The third one changes the scope of work and usually the fee.
The budget, against the scope
Most enquirers have a number. Far fewer have had it tested against what they are describing, and that gap is where projects die at stage two.
The date, and who else has to agree
A client working to a season behaves differently from one working to a mood. A second approver nobody mentioned is the commonest reason a scheme stalls.
Funding route and decision-maker alignment sit under the same four. Six of them covers all of it, which is why this instrument is short and why it can afford to be blunt.
What we would build
The result that says not yet is the one worth building
Is Your Project Ready for an Architect? Six questions, a viability band, and hard disqualifiers that no amount of enthusiasm scores past.
example.com/project-check, question 2
Question 2 of 6
About 90 seconds left
Who owns the site, and what is its planning position?
example.com/project-check/result
44of 100
Not yet viable
Two things are missing before anyone can price this.
You own the site and you are working to a date, which already puts this ahead of most enquiries. What is missing is a budget tested against the scope, and one approver who has not yet seen the scheme.
- Ready
Site owned outright, and a season you are working towards.
- Missing
No cost plan, so the scope and the budget have never met.
- Next
A second approver in the background who has not seen it.
Sample screens. The question, the answers, the counts, the score and its breakdown are written to show the components. RampFunnels is pre-launch, so none of it is drawn from a real project.
A refusal on record is not a lower score. It is a different route, because the work it implies is different and so is the fee. That distinction is a practice judgement, it is the sort of thing the model is built out of, and it is the reason this cannot be bought off a shelf.
Who reaches a principal
Viable projects go to a paid feasibility study. The rest go to a guide.
Two destinations, decided by the score rather than by whoever answered the phone.
Viable
Site secured, budget tested, date real, decision-makers named. The results page offers a feasibility study you charge for, and the answers arrive with the booking, so the first paid hour starts where the free one used to finish.
Not yet
The preparation guide, naming the prerequisites they are short of and what each usually takes. They come back when they have them, or they do not, and either way nobody spent a morning finding out.
The second route is the one that pays for this. The unpaid meeting is the expense here, and it is the only one you can stop paying without losing a single project worth having. Everything that still reaches a principal reaches them qualified.
Across the practice
One instrument, three different people answering it
The composition holds. The respondent, the wording and the destination all change.
Residential and small commercial
The enquiry volume is highest here and the conversion is lowest. The score routes an owned site with funding to a paid feasibility study and sends the rest away with something useful.
Landlord-facing condition work
Point the same instrument at commercial landlords instead: asset by asset EPC position, lease expiries and what the 2028 and 2030 MEES dates require of each one. A dated obligation qualifies harder than any question you could write.
Cost consultancy and project management
The respondent is a developer or a self-builder with a scope and a number that have never been in the same document. Scoring that distance is the reason to call you.
Your traffic
A project starts in a search box months before a practice is chosen
Whoever is useful during those months is on a very short list by the end of them.
Search
People research permitted development, conservation area rules and what an extension costs long before they contact anybody. An article answers it and loses the lead. A readiness score answers it, keeps the answers, and tells you which of those readers owns a site.
What changes after an organic clickPackages
Three packages, fixed scope, nothing open ended
Package 1
The readiness score
One instrument, built and live: the model, the questions, the viability bands, both result pages and the preparation guide the low band receives.
Package 2
The funnel around it
Everything above, plus the pages your search traffic lands on, the follow-up written against what each enquirer is missing, and the routing into your enquiry list.
Package 3
A second instrument
A landlord-facing or developer-facing version for the surveying side of the practice, plus somebody reading the answers every month and changing whatever stops earning its place.
Prices are not published yet because they are not final. When they are, they go on the pricing page as numbers.
What is in each packageQuestions
What a practice principal asks first
It puts some people off, and those are the ones costing you a meeting each. Anyone who owns a site and has a budget will answer six questions about it happily, because they want to know whether they are ready as much as you do. The ones who abandon were the ones who arrived with nothing and would have found that out in your office instead.
Your turn
The quickest way to judge a qualifying instrument is to answer one
Ours scores the funnel your own enquiries arrive through, and the report names the step losing you the most of them.
Not open yet. When it opens, the score and the report are yours whether or not we ever speak.