I worked for Famo.us back when it was an open source framework, and I know intimately well how hard it was to create something like this. Incredibly powerful if this reaches it's full potential, and kudos to you for embarking on this path to try! I keep waiting to see if this ever comes to be.
I think think really depends on your business. Are you selling hardware, or SaaS? B2B can be $400 or $500,000 / yr per deal.
I've done half million dollar deals that take 8 months from first contact to close, and I have had deals of $30k / yr close without me ever talking to the customer. I sell Software and services to SMBs and Enterprise accounts.
The larger deal (with a F500 company) had contract negotiations with multiple levels of executives and stakeholders on their end. They decided our solution was right for them after about 3 months, and spend 5 on contract and implementation. This probably could have gone smoother, but would be impossible to automate IMHO.
We have a fairly low level of sales automation. It works for SMBs, but not for the larger clients. A lead, at this point, stays with the sales person until it's closed when it's handed off to an account manager.
The most tedious parts are the back and forth, waiting on legal to approve and redline a contract version.
Oil is taxed quite a bit there, along with higher property taxes (some of the highest in the nation). But you'll also notice the roads aren't stellar, and many areas have issues with public education. Lack of state tax is reflected in all of this.
Being completely honest about your intentions is the best approach. For instance, tell them you're working on a new product and you think it could be helpful to someone who owns a business similar to his/hers. Say you know they're busy (all SMBs are), and ask for a couple minutes of their time to just explain what you're hoping to build and if they would give you any feedback. If you have a BETA product, offer to give it to them for free with no commitment to buy. Just make it really easy for them to say yes and make it OK for them to say no, or not even respond.
Showing up at their work is likely not going to get you what you want because their day is probably already scheduled and it could be a pretty big inconvenience. Or likely a major waste of your time. Let them schedule through email. I'd be willing to bed if you get 10 - 20 email address or companies, you'd get a couple responses agreeing to a phone call or company.
Make your first interaction short (5 - 10 mins) and work to develop that relationship as they could maybe even become your first customer.
Just talk to the VP before it becomes anything significant and get clearance. If you want to start something and they say no, then you know in advance and you can decide if you want to leave or not. If you start a serious side business and they find out without you having told them, then it's problematic. You signed a contract when you started.
If you didn't sign anything then you are free to do as you like. But this is probably an unlikely scenario.
If you build a side project without your employers knowledge, especially if it's in a similar space, and you are successful ... your ex-employer and their investors will make your life very very difficult. In my experience, companies don't care if you're working on a non-competing idea. Just get clearance before hand.
> There's a huge difference in return to investors between skilled data scientists doing one-offs, and an engine that does the work on its own
This is kind of the crux, right? If the investors believe that there is a future roadmap to essentially automate what the team is doing ... That's one thing. If they are investing today because the CEO is saying "Look! It's automated!", then that's pretty much on them.
That said, these investors have literally millions of dollars to complete due diligence, and if they miss on something like that, it's on them. Investors are putting so much money into these companies on "demos" and without really looking under the hood. So if they complete their due dilligence, their essentially saying "we are investing in your current product and our current understanding of it". I don't think there's going to be a fraud lawsuit here.
Theranos was changing the output data that the investors saw, not just saying "we do blood tests better!". That was straight up fraud because the data reviewed in due diligence was false.
