How to Map a B2B Decision Network: Influence, Authority, Access, and Veto Power

Who this framework is for

This framework is for teams that have identified stakeholders but still cannot explain how requirements, recommendations, information, approvals, and stop conditions move among them. It is particularly useful in industrial, project, channel, and cross-border purchases where plants, corporate functions, contractors, and outside authorities may share decision work. It maps the current network; it does not prescribe outreach or score political power.

Contents

1 Replace the power score with four paths 2 Define influence 3 Define formal authority 4 Define access 5 Define verified veto power 6 Build directional network edges 7 Find gaps, concentration, and bottlenecks 8 Illustrative example 9 Common mistakes 10 What this does not mean 11 Common questions 12 Sources and methodology

1. Replace the power score with four paths

Labels such as High Power or Decision Maker hide important differences. A person can be influential because colleagues trust the person's technical judgment, yet have no formal approval authority. Another person can sign within a threshold but rely entirely on an evaluation team. A coordinator can provide access while remaining neutral. A quality function can stop acceptance only when a specified requirement is unmet. The SellersGPT four-path model records: Path Core question What it is not Influence Can this node change criteria, a recommendation, or another participant's judgment? Seniority, popularity, or responsiveness Authority Can this node formally approve, commit, contract, sign, or accept within scope? General executive status or assumed budget ownership Access Can this node provide required information, an introduction, or a process route? Support, authority, or permission to bypass controls Veto power Can this node withhold a mandatory clearance when a named condition is unmet? Disagreement, advice, delay, or skepticism Do not average these paths. Each answers a different operational question and may require a different response or evidence item.

2. Define influence

Influence is observed ability to shape the decision without necessarily controlling formal approval. Strong evidence includes:

• a requirement written or materially changed by the person;

• a test or criterion adopted by the group;

• a recommendation cited in a later decision;

• an operating concern that changes scope;

• a specialist interpretation accepted by an authority;

• an introduction that changes who participates, when the effect is visible. Weak clues include title, meeting attendance, response speed, or a colleague saying the person is important without explaining how. Record the direction: Quality engineer -> influences -> technical acceptance criterion. Do not merely assign High Influence. NASA systems-engineering guidance begins stakeholder-expectations definition by identifying stakeholders and their needs, wants, expectations, and constraints so they can be translated into validated requirements. NASA, 4.1 Stakeholder Expectations Definition Its scope is systems engineering, not sales. It demonstrates how stakeholder input can affect requirements even when those stakeholders do not own contract authority.

3. Define formal authority

Authority is the verified ability to perform a binding or formally recognized act for the decision scope. It can include approving funds, selecting a source, signing, accepting a deliverable, or authorizing a site change. Authority has limits:

• amount or budget threshold;

• legal entity or site;

• stage or type of approval;

• product or risk category;

• time period or delegation;

• conditions that must be satisfied first. The FAR states that contracting officers can bind the U.S. government only within delegated authority and that limits must be clear. FAR 1.602-1, Authority This federal rule is not a private-company authority test. It offers a precise illustration: authority is delegated, bounded, and documentable. Write the act and limit. Can sign contracts up to stated threshold for this legal entity is more useful than Final decision-maker. When direct evidence is absent, authority remains Unknown.

4. Define access

Access is the ability to open a legitimate information or process path. Examples include:

• supplying an applicable standard or tender document;

• introducing the person who owns a condition;

• arranging a site review through the authorized process;

• routing a question to an evaluation team;

• explaining the required vendor-registration path;

• identifying when a governance review occurs. Access does not equal endorsement. A procurement officer can explain the process impartially. An assistant can schedule a review without influencing its outcome. A Business Champion can provide introductions but lack budget authority. Public source-selection rules distinguish these paths. FAR 15.303 assigns source-selection decisions, evaluation, focal-point communication, and award responsibilities to specified participants. FAR 15.303, Responsibilities The lesson for a commercial map is that being the route for communication is not automatically being the evaluator or authority. Record access events, not just access claims. "Introduced the process engineer on August 18" is direct evidence. "Likely well connected" is not.

5. Define verified veto power

Veto power is the ability to stop progress by withholding a mandatory clearance or by confirming that a hard condition is not met. It requires three pieces: 1 a named mandatory condition; 2 an identified role or authority that evaluates or clears it; 3 evidence that failure or withheld approval stops the relevant path. Examples can include mandatory safety acceptance, supplier qualification, legal authority, funding approval, technical compliance, or customer-specification acceptance. The applicable condition varies by decision. A 2025 Government of Canada procurement-governance audit describes different public officials and functions with complementary accountabilities, delegated contracting authority, business ownership, and oversight. Government of Canada, Horizontal Internal Audit of Procurement Governance It does not say every participant has veto power. Use it to understand why one role's required clearance can differ from another role's recommendation. If a stakeholder can request changes but the purchase can proceed without acceptance, label Constrain or Influence, not Veto. If evidence is indirect, write Inferred stop condition and keep veto power Unknown.

6. Build directional network edges

Use this edge record: Field Required entry Source node Person, team, external party, or Unknown role Path type Influence, Authority, Access, or Veto Target Person, team, decision artifact, approval, or condition Observed action What actually happened or was documented Evidence state Known, Inferred, Unknown, or Contradicted Scope Account/site, application, purchase situation, stage Limit Threshold, condition, geography, entity, or time Source/date First-party document, direct statement, public record, and date Owner/review Person responsible for validation and next review The UK Sourcing Playbook describes cross-functional involvement by commercial, finance, project delivery, policy, legal, and other professionals, including decision makers and approvers. UK Government, The Sourcing Playbook Its public-sector scope differs from commercial buying, but it supports mapping functions and accountabilities instead of one generic power label. Create multiple edges when one node has several paths. Do not make a single combined power = 4 value.

7. Find gaps, concentration, and bottlenecks

Use three diagnostics: Missing-path diagnostic For each applicable approval or evaluation condition, is the influence, authority, access, or veto path Known, Inferred, or Unknown? Unknown remains visible. Concentration diagnostic How many Known paths depend on one node? Concentration can create map fragility even when functional roles look complete. It is not evidence that the person is unreliable. Bottleneck diagnostic Does one node or condition sit on every known route to a required decision? Verify whether that reflects the buyer's actual process or only incomplete research. Never convert these diagnostics into purchase probability. They identify where context or evidence is concentrated and where a bounded validation action may be necessary.

8. Illustrative example

Illustrative example - explicitly fictional. Greyhaven Packaging, a fictional manufacturer, is considering a robotic case-packer at one site. Its map contains 12 decision edges. Path type Known Inferred Unknown Total Influence 3 1 0 4 Authority 1 1 1 3 Access 2 0 1 3 Veto 1 1 0 2 Total 7 3 2 12 Known-edge share is 7 / 12 = 58.3%. Authority knowledge is 1 / 3 = 33.3%, while influence knowledge is 3 / 4 = 75%. Retaining path-specific denominators reveals that the map knows more about influence than formal approval. The maintenance manager owns two Known influence edges and one Known access edge. The plant engineer owns a Known influence edge and an Inferred veto edge tied to technical acceptance. The final capital authority is Unknown. Greyhaven does not call the maintenance manager the decision-maker because three visible paths converge there. The next action is to confirm capital approval limits and whether technical acceptance is mandatory before the capital review. The figures describe the fictional map only. They do not predict a response, approval, or sale.

9. Common mistakes

• Combining all forms of power into one High/Medium/Low score.

• Inferring authority from seniority or title.

• Treating access as endorsement.

• Calling disagreement or evidence requests a veto.

• Recording edges without direction, target, or condition.

• Ignoring limits on amount, site, entity, stage, or time.

• Using meeting attendance as proof of influence.

• Treating a concentrated network as proof of account failure.

• Letting a high Known-edge percentage override a mandatory unknown authority.

10. What this does not mean

The four paths are an editorial mapping model, not a legal or organizational determination. Formal authority and mandatory conditions must be established under the buyer's actual governance and applicable rules. The framework does not recommend manipulating stakeholders, bypassing a process, or contacting people because they appear powerful. It does not infer intent, approval, or revenue. It exists to make the current decision structure and evidence gaps more explicit.

11. Common questions

Can one person have all four paths? Yes, especially in a small organization, but each path needs its own evidence and limits. Is an executive always influential? No. Executive authority or rank does not prove decision-specific influence, attention, or access. Can a user have veto power? Only if a mandatory acceptance condition gives that user or user group the ability to withhold clearance. Usage alone is insufficient. What if the authority is a committee? Use a team node and map members or subconditions only when needed. Record how the collective act is made and who controls the formal record. Should every edge produce a contact action? No. Most edges exist to explain the decision. Contact requires a separate useful purpose, owner, permission check, suppression check, and stop rule.

12. Sources and methodology

The four paths, edge schema, and network diagnostics are SellersGPT editorial tools. Official sources illustrate scoped stakeholder, authority, access, and approval structures; they do not establish a universal private-sector decision network. 1 BC07-FAR-AUTHORITY - U.S. Federal Acquisition Regulation, "1.602-1 Authority." https://www.acquisition.gov/far/1.602-1 Accessed August 24, 2026. 2 BC07-FAR-SELECTION - U.S. Federal Acquisition Regulation, "15.303 Responsibilities." https://www.acquisition.gov/far/15.303 Accessed August 24, 2026. 3 BC07-CANADA-GOVERNANCE - Government of Canada, "Horizontal Internal Audit of Procurement Governance." https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/services/audit-eval uation/horizontal-internal-audits/horizontal-internal-audit-procurement-governance.html Accessed August 24, 2026. 4 BC07-UK-SOURCING - UK Government, "The Sourcing Playbook." https://www.gov.uk/governme nt/publications/the-sourcing-and-consultancy-playbooks/the-sourcing-playbook-html Accessed August 24, 2026. 5 BC07-NASA-EXPECTATIONS - National Aeronautics and Space Administration, "4.1 Stakeholder Expectations Definition." https://www.nasa.gov/reference/4-1-stakeholder-expectations-definition/ Accessed August 24, 2026.