Knowledge
Sales discovery in B2B companies: results of the TechMine study
91% of B2B decision-makers consider needs discovery important or very important. 55% admit that they nevertheless present a proposal without conducting it. This discrepancy, between what companies believe and what they actually do, is the main conclusion of a study TechMine conducted at the turn of 2025 and 2026 among 228 business owners and board members operating in B2B.
Key results (N = 228)
- 91% rate needs discovery as important or very important, an average of 4.56 out of 5
- 83% declare that they discover the client’s needs before presenting a solution
- 55% admit that they sometimes send proposals without discovering needs: 28% regularly, 27% sometimes
- 66% submit a proposal despite knowing the solution does not match the client’s need
- 32% have a fully standardized needs discovery process
- 100% of companies skip discovery where it is not formally required
Study methodology
| Conducted by | TechMine, Smart Scale Consulting |
|---|---|
| Study author | Łukasz Zjawiński |
| Sample | N = 228 |
| Respondents | business owners and C-level executives in B2B companies |
| Data collection period | the turn of 2025 and 2026 |
| Technique | online survey, 9 closed questions and 1 open question |
| Sampling | purposive (non-random), based on personal invitation |
| Anonymity | none: every response verified for the respondent’s identity |
| Base for percentages | N = 228, unless stated otherwise next to a result |
Purposive sampling means that the results should not be generalized to the whole population of B2B companies in Poland. They describe how a specific, verified group of decision-makers thinks about needs discovery and how they conduct it. The lack of anonymity raises the credibility of the answers: people are less likely to inflate their own competences when they know they can be held to account for it. With a different sample, individual percentages might shift by a few points. The proportions and patterns, especially the gap between declarations and practice, would remain.
Declarations: the subject looks settled
At the level of beliefs the picture is consistent. 83% of respondents claim they discover the client’s needs before presenting a solution. 91% rate needs discovery as important or very important, with an average of 4.56 out of 5. 82% consider it a mandatory element of the sales process, and 84% consider it necessary for building client trust.
If conclusions were based solely on these four numbers, needs discovery in Polish B2B companies would look like an exhausted subject.
It is worth noticing, however, what lies beneath that first result. Set against the further answers, it shows that “needs discovery” means very different things here. For some it is a structured interview with a clear goal, for others a few perfunctory questions at the start of a meeting, followed by a presentation of the offer anyway. The conviction that “we discover needs” is sometimes more dangerous than the awareness that one does not, because it closes the road to improvement. A company that knows it does not discover needs can start. A company convinced that it does, even though it does so superficially, sees no reason to change anything.
Practice: the picture falls apart
55% of the same respondents admit that they sometimes present a proposal without discovering needs : 28% do it regularly, 27% from time to time. This is the central number of the whole study: more than half of the companies that had just rated needs discovery as important send proposals without it.
66% submit a proposal despite knowing the solution does not match the client’s need. Two-thirds of respondents send a proposal knowing it does not fit. The client receives a proposal that does not address their situation and concludes that the company did not understand them or is trying to push something on them.
Only 32% of companies have a fully standardized needs discovery process, and 43% declare partial standardization. This means that 68% of companies have no process that looks the same regardless of who leads the conversation and what mood they are in. “Partially standardized” in practice most often means that someone once wrote down a few questions, but nobody checks whether they are asked and what happens with the answers.
58% of respondents experience client impatience when asking questions. This is not the client’s problem; it is feedback on the quality of those questions. Clients are not impatient with questions as such. They are impatient with questions that lead nowhere, have no visible point and sound like a form to fill in instead of a conversation.
Full study results
| Result | Question / area | Base |
|---|---|---|
| 83% | declare needs discovery before presenting a solution | N = 228 |
| 91% | rate needs discovery as important or very important (average 4.56 / 5) | N = 228 |
| 82% | consider needs discovery a mandatory element of the sales process | N = 228 |
| 84% | consider needs discovery necessary for building trust | N = 228 |
| 55% | present a proposal without discovering needs (28% regularly, 27% sometimes) | N = 228 |
| 66% | present a proposal despite a lack of fit with the client’s needs | N = 228 |
| 67% | include conclusions from needs discovery in the proposal | N = 228 |
| 58% | encounter client impatience when asking questions | N = 228 |
| 32% | have a fully standardized needs discovery process | N = 228 |
| 43% | have a partially standardized needs discovery process | N = 228 |
Cross-tabulated data: what distinguishes companies that discover needs from those that only say so
The most interesting part of the results lies not in the averages but in the comparison of two groups: companies in which needs discovery is a formal requirement of the process, and those in which it depends on the salesperson’s discretion.
| Area | Discovery mandatory | Discovery not mandatory |
|---|---|---|
| Full process standardization | 37% | n/a |
| Partial process standardization | 48% | n/a |
| Any process structure | 85% | 7% |
| Carries conclusions from discovery into the proposal | 77% | n/a |
| Skips needs discovery anyway | 45% | 100% |
The results in this table are calculated on sub-samples drawn from the main sample (N = 228). Sub-sample sizes were not reported, so the results should be read as an indication of direction, not as precise estimates.
The pattern is clear. Where needs discovery is formalized and enforced by structure, companies build standardization around it and carry the conclusions into the proposal. Where it depends on goodwill, it is skipped , under time pressure, client impatience or the habit of sending proposals right away.
Two numbers deserve separate attention.
When needs discovery is not required, it is skipped in 100% of cases. Not a single respondent who does not have needs discovery as a required element of the process conducts it on their own initiative. This does not mean people are lazy or incompetent. It means that in an environment with pressure on results, on speed and on the number of proposals, every element not enforced by structure will sooner or later be eliminated by daily practice.
But even where discovery is mandatory, 45% skip it anyway. Merely writing needs discovery into the process as a required element is not enough. There has to be a mechanism that makes it impossible to move to the next stage without discovery having been done: a CRM, a checklist, a manager’s review, anything. Without it, “mandatory” is an empty word.
What follows from this
The study revealed that in B2B companies there is no problem with awareness of the importance of needs discovery. There is a problem with systemic implementation and with communication.
The gap between “I know I should” and “I do it consistently” is not unique to needs discovery. In B2B sales, however, its consequences are particularly costly, because they concern the moment when the client decides whether the company understands them or is simply trying to sell them something. That moment determines the whole rest of the process: the level of trust, the willingness to share information and the final buying decision.
The client impatience experienced by 58% of respondents points to the second dimension of the problem. Companies that discover needs without structure and without understanding why they ask each question meet resistance, and conclude from it that clients do not want to talk. When the questions follow from one another and the client sees that the answers will serve a better fit of the solution, resistance drops.
Three recommendations
1. Formally anchor needs discovery
Not as a recommendation or good practice, but as a condition for moving to the next stage of the sales process. The data is unambiguous: where needs discovery is optional, it is skipped. And add an enforcement mechanism; without it, 45% will skip it even when it is mandatory.
2. Standardize needs discovery
The structure of the conversation, the set of questions, a clear algorithm for asking them, the technique and the rationale for every question. So that discovery does not depend on the salesperson’s mood, skill or comfort level; 68% of companies do not have this. The open answers show that the lack of standardization translates into months of onboarding a new person into sales, inconsistent quality of conversations and frustration on both sides.
3. Close the feedback loop
Needs discovery whose conclusions do not reach the proposal is a waste of time and a source of client irritation. At the same time, sending proposals without taking the client’s real situation into account is replicating bad sales practices and a breach of business ethics.
Limitations of the study
- Purposive sampling, not random. The results describe a verified group of 228 decision-makers, not the population of Polish B2B companies. They should not be presented as population data.
- Self-reported data. The study measures what respondents say about their practice, not an observation of that practice. For questions about skipping needs discovery, the direction of error is rather downward: people are reluctant to admit to shortcuts.
- Sub-sample sizes were not reported. The results in the cross-tabulation table, including the 100% value, are based on smaller sub-samples and should be read as an indication of direction.
- A single measurement in time. The study shows no trend or change over time.
How to cite this study
TechMine (2026). Needs discovery in B2B companies: results of the TechMine study. Author: Łukasz Zjawiński. Sample: N = 228 business owners and board members, data collected at the turn of 2025 and 2026. Access: techmine.pl/en/b2b-needs-discovery-study-results/
Data from the study may be cited and used in publications with attribution and a link to this page.
Frequently asked questions about the study
How many respondents took part in the study?
228 respondents took part in the study: business owners and C-level executives in B2B companies. All were invited personally, nobody answered anonymously, and every response was verified for identity.
When was the study conducted?
Data was collected at the turn of 2025 and 2026. The study was conducted by TechMine, Smart Scale Consulting; the author is Łukasz Zjawiński.
Are the results representative of Polish B2B companies?
No. The sampling was purposive, not random, so the results should not be generalized to the whole population of B2B companies in Poland. They describe a verified group of 228 decision-makers. The proportions and patterns, especially the gap between declarations and practice, are nevertheless clear enough that they would hold their direction with a different sample.
Which number from the study is the most important?
55%: the share of respondents admitting that they present a proposal without discovering needs, even though 91% of the same group rate needs discovery as important or very important. This discrepancy is the main conclusion of the whole study.
Why do companies skip needs discovery if they consider it important?
The data shows that what decides is the structure of the process, not beliefs. Where needs discovery is not a formal requirement, it is skipped in 100% of cases. Under pressure of time, results and client impatience, every element not enforced by structure drops out of the process.
About the study
The study was conducted by TechMine, Smart Scale Consulting, a consulting firm working with owners of B2B technology and service companies on building a repeatable sales process. Needs discovery is one of the pillars of the proprietary SalesMachine B2B sales system, which was the direct reason for checking what this element looks like in the practice of Polish companies, on a wider group than the pool of its own clients.
The full study report, with commentary on every result, cross-tabulated data and conclusions from the open answers, is available for download (in Polish): TechMine needs discovery study report (in Polish).
