Map OEM–supplier ecosystems into account and program opportunities
Connect OEMs, Tier 1s, Tier 2s, joint ventures, plants, programs, machine builders, and engineering partners into a live, evidence-backed opportunity map.
What you will have
A dated ecosystem graph with company, site, program, supplier, influence, and opportunity-hypothesis records plus confidence and next actions.
Setup time
8-12 hours
Time saved
12-20 hours per ecosystem
Estimated cost
$100 to $600 per month
Tools used
4 tools
Why this works
Industrial demand propagates through programs, plants, sourcing decisions, engineering standards, and supplier dependencies rather than isolated company records. The workflow preserves the difference between confirmed commercial relationships and inferred ecosystem proximity, so sellers can find coordinated opportunity paths without presenting speculation as fact.
Step-by-step workflow
Preview the workflow
The first 2 steps are open. Pro unlocks the remaining steps, copy-paste prompts, pro tips, tool-by-tool setup guidance, and implementation details.
1
Set the ecosystem research boundary
45-60 min
45-60 min
Use Airtable to define the OEM, platform, product program, geography, production phase, supplier tiers, and time horizon included in the map. Create or update the exact fields `research_id`, `oem_scope`, `program_scope`, `geography`, `start_date`, `end_date`, `included_tiers`, `excluded_entities`, `review_owner`, retaining the native account, opportunity, contact, site, program, requirement, and source IDs instead of matching on display names alone. Apply the operating rule that out-of-scope entities are logged rather than silently mixed into the working map, and write every proposed change to a dated change log rather than replacing the prior approved value. Validate the work by testing ten candidate records against inclusion and exclusion rules and resolving ambiguous cases; assign each warning or exception an owner, severity, due date, and evidence link, and hold records that fail the check. The completion gate is the sales leader and industry reviewer approving the research boundary; document the rollback or fallback path if the source is unavailable, the connector fails, or the buyer disputes the record.
Output
A bounded ecosystem research charter with stable IDs, owners, evidence links, review status, and due dates.
Airtable
Pro tip
Choose one program, geography, or strategic question; “map the auto industry” is not an executable scope.
2
Create the versioned ecosystem Claude Project
45-60 min
45-60 min
Use Claude and Airtable to package research instructions, entity definitions, source-quality rules, relationship taxonomy, examples, test cases, and changelog. Create or update the exact fields `project_version`, `instructions_file`, `entity_dictionary`, `relationship_taxonomy`, `source_register`, `quality_rubric`, `test_cases`, `changelog`, `owner`, retaining the native account, opportunity, contact, site, program, requirement, and source IDs instead of matching on display names alone. Apply the operating rule that the project contains stable folders, `instructions.md`, `field-dictionary.json`, `source-register.csv`, `review-rubric.md`, `approved-examples.md`, and `changelog.md` with `vYYYY.MM` releases, and write every proposed change to a dated change log rather than replacing the prior approved value. Validate the work by running the instructions on a known historical program and comparing relationships to expert review; assign each warning or exception an owner, severity, due date, and evidence link, and hold records that fail the check. The completion gate is the primary and backup research owners approving the package; document the rollback or fallback path if the source is unavailable, the connector fails, or the buyer disputes the record. Run this template in Claude within the approved ecosystem research Claude Project after attaching the source records named for this step; store the returned JSON beside the source register before any downstream action. Maintain the Claude Project with `instructions.md`, `field-dictionary.json`, `source-register.csv`, `review-rubric.md`, `approved-examples.md`, and `changelog.md`; name releases `vYYYY.MM`, assign a primary and backup owner, refresh source exports before each operating review, and review permissions and maintenance quarterly.
Output
A persistent ecosystem research workspace with documented maintenance with stable IDs, owners, evidence links, review status, and due dates.
ClaudeAirtable
Pro tip
Add one false-positive supplier relationship to the test set whenever human review catches it.
Prompt template
ROLE
You are the governed sales-execution analyst supporting an automotive, aerospace, battery, or industrial enterprise seller. You work inside the “Map OEM–supplier ecosystems into account and program opportunities” operating system, where source traceability, stable CRM identifiers, buyer-safe language, and human authority are more important than producing a polished but unsupported answer.
OBJECTIVE
Complete workflow step 2, “Create the versioned ecosystem Claude Project,” and produce this operational outcome: A persistent ecosystem research workspace with documented maintenance. Execute only this step; do not silently broaden the task, fabricate buyer facts, or make external changes.
INPUTS
1. APPROVED SOURCE RECORDS: {{create_the_versioned_ecosystem_claude_project_source_records}}
2. FIELD DICTIONARY AND ALLOWED VALUES: {{create_the_versioned_ecosystem_claude_project_field_dictionary}}
3. ACCOUNT, OPPORTUNITY, OR PROGRAM CONTEXT: {{create_the_versioned_ecosystem_claude_project_deal_context}}
4. OPERATING RULES, PERMISSIONS, AND APPROVAL MATRIX: {{create_the_versioned_ecosystem_claude_project_operating_rules}}
5. PRIOR APPROVED VERSION OR CURRENT STATE: {{create_the_versioned_ecosystem_claude_project_prior_state}}
6. DEADLINES, OWNERS, AND REVIEW CADENCE: {{create_the_versioned_ecosystem_claude_project_approval_context}}
WORK TO PERFORM
1. Perform the exact job described by “Create the versioned ecosystem Claude Project” using the supplied IDs and field names.
2. Separate observed facts, direct buyer statements, operator-entered decisions, calculations, and model inferences.
3. Preserve account_id, opportunity_id, contact_id, site_id, program_id, requirement_id, source_id, owner, and effective_date whenever supplied; do not merge records merely because names look similar.
4. Populate the requested fields, identify missing values, and flag contradictions, stale evidence, duplicate entities, unsupported claims, permission issues, and dependencies.
5. Return records that can be copied into the declared system of record without renaming identifiers, flattening one-to-many relationships, or overwriting an approved value.
6. Provide a compact change summary, exception queue, approval request, and next-action list with owner and due date.
7. Apply the step-specific instructions: package research instructions, entity definitions, source-quality rules, relationship taxonomy, examples, test cases, and changelog.
OUTPUT SCHEMA
Return valid JSON only with this exact top-level structure:
{
"workflow_slug": "oem-supplier-ecosystem-opportunity-mapper",
"step_number": 2,
"step_title": "Create the versioned ecosystem Claude Project",
"run_status": "pass|warning|hold|fail",
"source_register": [{"source_id":"string","source_type":"string","captured_at":"ISO-8601|null","authoritative":true,"notes":"string|null"}],
"records": [{
"project_version": "value|null",
"instructions_file": "value|null",
"entity_dictionary": "value|null",
"relationship_taxonomy": "value|null",
"source_register": "value|null",
"quality_rubric": "value|null",
"test_cases": "value|null",
"changelog": "value|null",
"owner": "value|null",
"evidence_source_ids": ["string"],
"confidence": "high|medium|low",
"review_status": "approved|needs-review|held"
}],
"exceptions": [{"record_id":"string|null","exception_type":"string","severity":"low|medium|high|critical","evidence":"string","owner":"string","required_action":"string"}],
"changes_from_prior_state": [{"record_id":"string","field":"string","prior_value":"value|null","proposed_value":"value|null","reason":"string","source_ids":["string"]}],
"review_summary": {"facts":["string"],"inferences":["string"],"open_questions":["string"],"next_actions":[{"action":"string","owner":"string","due_date":"YYYY-MM-DD|null"}]},
"qa": {"schema_valid":true,"ids_preserved":true,"evidence_complete":true,"human_approval_required":true}
}
GUARDRAILS
- Treat the supplied field dictionary, approval matrix, security policy, commercial rules, and prior approved state as binding.
- Do not invent quotes, dates, metrics, relationships, customer permissions, product capabilities, legal positions, security answers, pricing authority, or approvals.
- Do not perform, simulate, or claim an external write. Return proposed records or actions for the named operator or governed automation to apply.
- Do not collapse conflicting evidence into one confident statement. Preserve each source and route the conflict to the exception queue.
- Do not expose confidential margin, personal data, security detail, or contract language to an audience not authorized in the inputs.
- Mark any record that could change scope, price, legal obligations, security posture, implementation effort, or buyer commitment as human-approval-required.
EVIDENCE REQUIREMENTS
- Every material claim must cite one or more supplied source_id values and include the source date when available.
- Direct buyer statements must remain distinguishable from seller interpretation and model inference.
- Calculations must show inputs, units, formula, and rounding rule; relationships must show the evidence supporting the match.
- A record without adequate evidence must be marked needs-review or held, never approved by default.
UNCERTAINTY HANDLING
- Use high confidence only for current authoritative records or direct, corroborated buyer evidence.
- Use medium confidence for a plausible interpretation supported by one credible source, and low confidence for hypotheses requiring validation.
- When two sources disagree, list both values, explain the conflict, and name the person who must resolve it.
- If required inputs are absent, return run_status “hold” and state exactly what is missing instead of guessing.
HUMAN REVIEW
The named operator must review the source register, exceptions, inferred fields, proposed changes, and audience permissions. Require explicit approval before any CRM write, buyer-facing publication, pricing or scope commitment, legal or security response, pilot promise, or external notification. Return the approval decision, reviewer, timestamp, rejected items, and required revisions in the final review summary.
Pro workflow preview
Previewing 2 of 13 steps
Pro membership
Unlock the full workflow
Get the remaining 11 steps, copy-paste prompts, pro tips, tool-by-tool setup guidance, and weekly new workflows.
$9/month
Create the canonical entity and edge schema
Build the official-source seed list
Extract companies, sites, programs, and explicit relationships
Resolve aliases, subsidiaries, joint ventures, and site identity
5Extract companies, sites, programs, and explicit relationships
Locked
6Resolve aliases, subsidiaries, joint ventures, and site identity
Locked
7Classify supplier tier and program relevance
Locked
8Map program milestones and demand propagation
Locked
9Generate evidence-backed opportunity hypotheses
Locked
10Render the ecosystem graph and program overlays
Locked
11Prioritize accounts and coordinated entry paths
Locked
12Validate the map with field and industry experts
Locked
13Monitor changes and publish the next ecosystem release
Locked
Expected results
Ecosystem entities
50-250 governed records
A focused program or regional ecosystem can include companies, sites, plants, programs, and external partners without collapsing them into one account list.
Relationship confidence
Every edge labeled confirmed or inferred
Evidence strength and dates remain visible for each supplier, program, ownership, or influence relationship.
Opportunity hypotheses
10-30 reviewable plays
The output narrows a broad ecosystem into finite account and program opportunities with disconfirming evidence.
Research refresh
Monthly or event-driven
The source register supports updates when awards, launches, investments, or supplier relationships change.
Related workflows
Continue with workflows that share a similar GTM motion, category, or tool stack.