Klippa is a field-ops workflow tool for mid-market logistics teams, running with 2 paying pilots and a working prototype.
Founder requested mentor time to talk roadmap and outbound. Underneath, screening shows ICP and pricing are unresolved.
Move Devansh from 'two pilots feel like fit' to a single named buyer and a 30-day reference customer.
- S01The operational pain the product addresses, in the customer's own language
- S02Why his two paying pilots agreed to pilot — the trigger event, not just the logo
- S03Where his prototype quietly outperforms incumbents on time-to-reconcile
- W01Which of the two pilots is the repeatable buyer vs the lucky one
- W02Whether the pricing anchor is seat, usage, or outcome — currently all three
- W03How to describe in one sentence who Klippa is clearly not for
Devansh is in the warm, forward-leaning stage of clarity that follows a recent win. He can describe the problem and his pilots' triggers fluently, but cannot yet name a single repeatable buyer. The tension is between his confidence in the product and the absence of segmentation discipline behind it.
ICP is described by industry, not by buying behaviour
GapTwo paying pilots are being treated as a segment pattern when the buying motion, urgency, and workflow shape have not been compared.
ICP shape decides outbound, pricing, and roadmap order. Every decision over the next quarter compounds from this one.
Session becomes a feature and channel conversation that produces motion without sharpening the venture.
- C01Force a named buyer — role, trigger, decision moment
- C02Ask which pilot would survive losing the other
- C03Press for a one-sentence 'not for' statement
- X01Roadmap and feature planning
- X02Fundraising or pitch refinement
- X03Brand and website feedback
Open by anchoring on the two pilots — not the product. Ask Devansh to describe each pilot's buyer with the same level of detail; the gap between the two descriptions is the session's real material.
- Customer ClarityWeakICP is two anecdotes, not a defined buyer — narrow this first
- Problem DefinitionStrongUse as anchor when redirecting from feature talk
- Solution LogicModerateWorks in 2 contexts; not proven across the segment
- Payment / Business LogicWeakPricing model undecided — pressure-test in session
- Validation DisciplineModerateUpdates on evidence but slowly; push for one binary test
- Strategic FocusWeakEnergy spread across roadmap, outbound, hiring — contract focus
- Q01Which of the two pilot accounts represents the repeatable buyer, and why?
- Q02What broke when the second pilot tried the workflow without your help?
- Q03Who is the named role, with the named trigger, that both pilots share?
- Q04If you had to lose one pilot next week, which one — and why?
- Q05In one sentence, who is Klippa clearly not for?
- X01Fundraising strategy or investor narrative
- X02Brand, website, or messaging feedback
- X03Long-term hiring plan or org design
- O01A one-sentence ICP — role, segment, trigger
- O02A named primary buyer that both pilots share
- O03A decision on which pilot is the reference customer for the next 30 days
Devansh names the buyer both pilots share — by role, trigger, and decision moment — and picks the reference pilot for the next 30 days.
Conversation drifts to roadmap or fundraising. Founder leaves energised but with the same vague ICP and the same three pricing models on the table.
Devansh responds well to specifics, not to abstractions. Keep the session inside the two pilot accounts; do not let it generalise.
Redirect from premature priorities
Founder energy is pointed at expansion (features, outbound, hiring). The strategically useful move is contraction — one buyer, one pilot, one sentence.
The Session Story
Devansh comes into this session warm. Klippa has two paying pilots, the prototype is in real hands, and he is reading those two logos as a pattern. His energy is pointed at expansion — more features, more outbound, more proof. Underneath that momentum, he is still in the stage of clarity where he can describe what Klippa does, but not yet who it is for in a way that would repeat.
The quiet stretch is that two paying pilots feel like product–market fit and they are not. They are two anecdotes that have not been tested against each other for buying motion, urgency, or workflow shape. He is trying to solve roadmap and pricing before he has named a single repeatable buyer, and that order will quietly make every later decision noisier. The mentor's job is to slow the expansion instinct long enough for that buyer to surface.
Progress in this session should feel like a small, deliberate contraction. By the end, Devansh should be able to name one buyer — role, trigger, decision moment — that both pilots share, say cleanly who Klippa is clearly not for, and decide which pilot is the reference customer for the next thirty days. Less roadmap, sharper ICP, one named buyer. That is what good looks like for him today.
Approach Devansh as a founder with real evidence but premature focus. Hold the session inside the two pilot accounts; refuse to discuss roadmap, pricing structure, or outbound channels until a single buyer — named by role, trigger, and decision moment — sits between them. The successful session ends with one buyer, one reference pilot, and one 'not for' statement. Everything else can wait two weeks.
- 01Which of the two pilot accounts represents the repeatable buyer, and why?
- 02What broke when the second pilot tried the workflow without your help?
- 03Who is the named role, with the named trigger, that both pilots share?