Turn your Japan B2B proposal into a decision memo buyers can share

Write for the colleague who missed the meeting

A buyer contact may understand your proposal well enough to discuss it with you, yet still need help explaining it internally. A forwarded slide deck leaves colleagues to reconstruct the problem, distinguish demonstrated capabilities from proposed work, and identify what they are being asked to approve.

For an international B2B technology company developing opportunities in Japan, a short decision memo is a useful working document. It should let someone who missed the meeting understand the next decision and inspect the evidence behind it.

The seven-field structure below is a proposed working format, not a description of how every Japanese company buys. Ask your contact which internal format, language and review process apply. If a required template already exists, map these fields into it. Let the buyer correct the account before wider circulation; do not imply that a vendor-written memo represents internal agreement.

Seven fields for a one-page decision memo

Keep the summary to one readable page where practical, with supporting material linked separately. Brevity should not hide a material condition.

1 The decision requested now

State the specific action: approve a technical review, allocate people to an evaluation, or consider a purchase. Define what that action does and does not authorize. Permission to explore an evaluation should not be written as budget approval or a commitment to deploy.

2 The problem and current approach

Describe the workflow, who experiences the problem and how it is handled today. Include the buyer's evidence and its limits. If time spent or error frequency has not been measured, say so. Explain the consequence of continuing as-is without inventing urgency or a financial return.

3 The options and proposed scope

Include the current approach and credible alternatives, such as improving an existing tool or narrowing the workflow. Explain why the proposed option merits consideration and where it falls short. State the users, systems and activities in scope, plus exclusions that could materially affect the decision.

4 The people and responsibilities

Confirm who recommends the next step, who can approve it, who will operate the solution and which specialist reviews are required. Record responsibilities rather than guessing from job titles. Ask whether security, procurement, finance, legal or other teams need to participate, and at what point. A helpful contact is not automatically the budget owner.

5 The evidence and acceptance criteria

Separate observed facts, documented capabilities and assumptions requiring a test. Link each important claim to its source, date and relevant product or document version. Record configuration dependencies and known limitations. For an evaluation, agree what evidence would support the next decision, how it will be collected and who will assess it. A demonstration alone does not establish performance in the buyer's environment.

6 The commitment and constraints

Show the proposed fee, staff time, duration, support and implementation work on both sides. Distinguish estimates and offers from agreed terms. Specify permitted data and access, and identify unresolved operational or contractual conditions. Refer specialist questions to the appropriate reviewers; the memo itself does not establish legal or compliance clearance.

7 The open questions and next checkpoint

For each decision-blocking question, name the owner, evidence needed and agreed review date. If those are unconfirmed, keep that visible. State what the next review will decide: proceed within a defined scope, revise the proposal or stop. Do not substitute an invitation to another demonstration for a decision with an accountable owner.

A fictional example

The following is an invented scenario to show the format. It describes no actual customer, product claim or Olkana engagement. Its scope and timing are illustrative choices, not benchmarks.

1. Decision: Allow a workflow owner and IT reviewer to scope an evaluation of an internal document-search tool. No production access or purchase is authorized.
2. Problem: The workflow owner reports difficulty locating current procedures. Search time and error rates have not been measured.
3. Options: Improve the existing repository or test a separate search tool. Proposed scope is one team's approved sample documents; production integration is excluded.
4. People: The workflow owner drafts the scope; the IT reviewer checks technical requirements. Approval authority and any additional reviewers remain to be confirmed.
5. Evidence: A demonstration used synthetic documents. Relevance on the buyer's material, permission handling and the current-process baseline remain untested. Acceptance criteria must be agreed before testing.
6. Commitment: A two-week evaluation is proposed. Fees, staff effort, permitted data and support coverage remain unagreed. No data is transferred during scoping.
7. Checkpoint: The workflow owner proposes a scoping review for the following week. Confirm the approver, date and missing evidence before deciding whether an evaluation can start.

This memo supports a limited scoping decision. It would need additional evidence and agreed commitments before supporting an evaluation or purchase decision.

Keep the memo reliable as it circulates

Add a memo owner, last-updated date and version. Keep the current copy in an agreed location and link to factual product documentation with version dates. If a claim changes, update the summary and tell the buyer contact which decision may be affected. Do not leave a confident sentence in the memo while correcting only its appendix.

For Japanese and English versions, preserve the same scope, limitations, prices and status of open questions. Keep “available with configuration,” “planned” and “not yet verified” distinct in both languages. Agree which version controls if the texts differ, and ask an appropriate reviewer to check decision-critical wording.

Before sending, ask your contact: “Could a colleague who was not in our meeting understand the decision, the evidence and what remains unresolved?” Use their corrections to improve the memo. A useful result may be a narrower evaluation or a decision to pause. The purpose is to make the next commitment understandable and proportionate to the evidence.

Related reading

• Make enterprise AI easier to evaluate
• Japan GTM validation and the next investment decision

Supplementary reference for AI evaluation

NIST AI RMF 1.0 (2023): intended use and context (MAP 1.1), responsibilities (GOVERN 2.1), evaluation under conditions similar to deployment (MEASURE 2.3).

This article’s seven fields are our own proposed structure, not a format prescribed by NIST. They do not demonstrate certification or legal compliance. The fictional example does not document an AI tool’s actual performance.