Insight · Illustrative framework, not a client case study
A method for comparing Saudi distributors on evidence.
Manufacturers often choose a Saudi distributor because they were the first to make contact. This framework sets out how candidates can be compared on the criteria that matter for a specialist product, and how to keep track of what has actually been confirmed.
1. Criteria and illustrative weights
| Criterion | Weight | What is examined |
|---|---|---|
| Category fit | 20% | Current portfolio, departments served and comparable products already sold. |
| Local technical and commercial reach | 15% | Sales and clinical or technical specialists, and which regions and customer types they actually cover. |
| Relevant regulated licences (to verify) | 15% | Licences relevant to the product class. Always verified against official sources, never taken from a pitch deck. |
| Manufacturer conflicts | 10% | Competing brands carried and how they are prioritised. Scored inversely: more conflict, lower score. |
| Operational coverage | 10% | Warehousing, delivery and response capability across the regions that matter for the use case. |
| Aftersales and service | 10% | Installation, training, servicing, calibration and consumables supply. |
| Procurement access | 10% | Experience with the routes the target buyers use, public and private. |
| Import and logistics readiness | 10% | Customs, storage conditions and handling appropriate to the product. |
2. Evidence levels
| Level | Meaning | Confidence factor |
|---|---|---|
| Verified | Confirmed from an official register, a document seen, or a reference independent of the distributor. | 1.0 |
| Claimed | Stated by the distributor or a third party but not yet independently confirmed. | 0.5 |
| Unknown | No reliable information yet. Recorded as a gap to close, not as a zero. | 0 |
3. The scoring method
Each criterion is rated from 0 to 5 on the information available. Two figures are then calculated:
- Indicative score = sum of (rating ÷ 5 × weight). This is what the candidate would score if every claim were true.
- Evidence-adjusted score = sum of (rating ÷ 5 × weight × confidence factor). This is what has actually been shown.
The gap between the two is the due diligence still to do. A candidate with a high indicative score and a low adjusted score is not a poor partner; it is an unverified one.
Illustrative worked example, hypothetical candidate
Category fit rated 4 of 5, verified: 4 ÷ 5 × 20 × 1.0 = 16. Licences rated 5 of 5, claimed only: indicative 15, adjusted 7.5. Aftersales unknown: indicative depends on the claim, adjusted 0, and recorded as a question for the next call.
These figures demonstrate the arithmetic only and describe no real organisation.
4. Example deliverable structure
- Summary: shortlist, recommendation and main open questions
- Product and SKU scope, including intended use for each SKU
- Candidate long list and the screening rules used to reduce it
- Scoring table with indicative and evidence-adjusted scores
- Evidence and assumption register, with source and date for each item
- Conflicts, gaps and dependencies for specialist review
- Suggested next steps and questions for each shortlisted candidate
5. Limitations
- Scores support a decision; they do not make it. Commercial terms, chemistry and commitment matter and are hard to score.
- Licence and registration status must be verified with official sources and, where needed, regulatory specialists.
- Public information on private distributors is often incomplete. Unknowns should be closed through direct questions and references.
- A framework applied by one researcher reflects that researcher's judgement. Ratings are recorded with reasons so they can be challenged.
Want this applied to your product?
The framework is usually applied within a scoped Saudi Market Validation. Start with a short fit review to see whether it is sensible for your product.