Before you have customers, an ideal customer profile is a provisional choice about whom to learn from. Use this SaaS ideal customer profile template to compare organizations by their workflow, current workaround, possible trigger, and access to the people involved. Choose one segment for your next research pass, write down exclusions, and name the evidence that would change your mind.
Separate the organization, person, and timing
Describe a company with a particular workflow and constraints. “Agencies handing active client accounts between account managers” is a researchable starting point; “any business that wants to save time” is too broad.
Identify the user, sponsor and buyer separately. An account manager may use the product while an operations lead owns the process and a director controls the budget.
A new client team or an upcoming transition can justify a question about current need. It does not prove the company is shopping, has budget, or wants your software.
Build the first profile from what you can support
- List the narrow task your current product can complete and its prerequisites. Exclude segments that require an unsupported workflow before interpreting their enthusiasm.
- Write three plausible segments. Use workflow differences that could change the decision, rather than three names for the same audience.
- Collect public examples of how each segment works and, where available, your own permissioned conversation notes. Preserve the source URL or note reference, date, exact observation, and limitations.
- Label observed facts, inferences and unknowns separately. A public job description can show that a role exists; your belief that the role struggles with a handoff remains an inference until checked.
- Choose the segment where a consequential uncertainty can be investigated next. Reachability matters, but easy access cannot repair a product mismatch.
Copy this worksheet once for each segment
Put three copies side by side in your own notes. There is no signup requirement. Keep the evidence status beside each entry, including fields you cannot fill yet.
- Segment: [organization type]; [workflow]; [constraint that makes it distinct]. Status: [observed / inferred / unknown].
- Product fit: [supported task]; [required inputs]; [missing capability]. Status: […].
- Current workaround: [what people do now]; [recent example]; [cost or frustration actually reported]. Status: […].
- Trigger: [observable event]; [why it might matter]; [question that checks present need]. Status: […].
- People: [user]; [sponsor]; [buyer]; [unconfirmed roles]. Status: […].
- Access path: [appropriate introduction, public contact route, or existing relationship]; [permission needed]. Status: […].
- Evidence: [URL or retained note reference]; [observation date]; [exact finding]; [contradictory finding]. Status: […].
- Disqualifier: [condition that makes this segment unsuitable for the current product]. Status: […].
- Next interview question: [question about a recent real event]; [answer that would weaken the hypothesis].
- Decision: [research next / hold / exclude]; [reason]; [review date and owner].
Worked comparison: three fictional segments
The product below is an invented client-handoff checklist for agencies. All observations, note references, and decisions in this example are fictional. No customer outcomes or buying probabilities are implied.
Observed in fictional note A, September 14: a friendly consultant manages every client alone and keeps a personal checklist. User and buyer are the same person; a direct introduction is available. Inferred trigger: adding a collaborator might create a handoff, but hiring is unknown. Disqualifier: no transfer between account owners today. Exclude this segment for now. Ask: “When did someone else last take over an active client?”
Inferred from the segment definition: multiple teams might create frequent handoffs. Workaround, recent trigger, inputs, sponsor and purchase process are unknown; no interview or source has been captured. A public operations contact may be an access path, but reachability is unconfirmed. Hold. Disqualifier to check: a mandatory integration the prototype lacks. Ask: “Walk me through the most recent cross-team client transfer.”
Observed in fictional note C, September 14: an account manager described a client transfer using a shared document and a missed owner assignment. The same note records an introduction to the operations lead. Inferred: a reusable handoff record could help. Buyer, frequency of transfers and willingness to replace the document are unknown. Disqualifier: transfers are too rare to justify a new workflow. Ask: “Show me the last two transfers and what happened after ownership changed.”
Write the provisional ICP and its exclusions
A usable first version for the fictional product: “We will research small agencies that transfer active clients between account managers using shared documents. We need access to the person doing the transfer and an operations sponsor. We will exclude teams with no actual ownership transfers or a required integration the prototype cannot support.”
Keep the trigger separate: “A forthcoming account transition may make an interview timely; present buying intent is unknown.” Avoid converting the profile into a claim that every matching agency has pain.
- Next uncertainty: do handoffs recur often enough for people to adopt a dedicated workflow?
- Counterevidence to seek: a current checklist already works well; ownership rarely changes; the real obstacle is staffing rather than coordination.
- Update record: version/date → new observation and source → field changed → segment kept, narrowed, or rejected → next question.
Revise after conversations and actual use
Keep the first document as a version rather than silently rewriting it to match every reply. If a person reports no recent handoff problem, retain that response alongside favorable ones. Repeated answers from one agency still describe one organization.
After interviews, invite suitable organizations into a bounded trial or design partnership. Record what they do with the product separately from what they say about it. As customer evidence becomes available, review which organizations return, pay, and remain a fit. A completed template alone establishes none of those outcomes.
Source and a bounded next step
Bring the candidate segments, evidence and strongest uncertainty to Soloop for discussion. Where the task is supported, review a bounded competitor or prospect research proposal. Treat the returned evidence as an input to the next conversation, rather than an automatically verified ICP.
Clay distinguishes an organizational ICP from individual buyer roles and separates fit from intent. Its guide starts from won customers; this original worksheet instead keeps customer-free segment choices explicitly provisional.
Clay: The Complete Guide to Ideal Customer Profiles