Spend less time preparing quotations.

What the process looks like today

Illustrative example: a distributor receives an RFQ with a spreadsheet of parts and PDF specifications. A sales coordinator copies line items into a quotation template, searches approved product and price records, checks unclear quantities with a colleague, then chases an approver before replying. Revised attachments and competing inbox threads make it difficult to see which version is ready or whether the customer received a follow-up.

How the improved workflow works

Illustrative workflow: receive an RFQ through an agreed inbox, parse its attachments, identify missing details, assemble a draft, obtain staff approval and update the agreed CRM or job record. The workflow keeps the source request alongside the draft so the reviewer can check requirements without reconstructing the email trail.

• Capture the request and attachments with a reference and assigned owner; identify revisions rather than silently treating every attachment as a new job.
• Extract requested items, quantities, units, required dates and technical requirements into the agreed quotation fields.
• Flag incomplete specifications, uncertain product matches and missing reference data for clarification instead of inventing an answer.
• Prepare a draft using approved templates and reference data, with unresolved points visible to the reviewer.
• Route pricing, contractual terms and the externally sent quotation through agreed business rules and human approval.
• Record the approved version and follow-up task in the agreed destination, with failures sent to an owner rather than hidden.

What can be automated, and where people stay in control

Rules-based checks can handle required fields, routing and approved calculations. AI may help interpret varied RFQ wording or prepare draft text where a fixed template is insufficient. Neither approach removes the need for commercial and technical judgement.

• Can help: organise RFQs, extract line items, compare against approved references, highlight omissions, assemble draft quotations and track approval status.
• Cannot assume: that a product is technically suitable, that stock or supplier lead times are current, or that historical prices are valid for a new request.
• Human approval: staff confirm product substitutions, margins, discounts, delivery commitments, contractual terms and external quotation release.
• Exceptions: conflicting specifications, unreadable attachments and uncertain matches go to a named reviewer; no silent guesses or unapproved customer commitments.

Source documents and existing systems

Examples include RFQ emails, PDF drawings or specifications, Excel item lists, approved catalogues, price lists and quotation templates. Potential destinations include a shared quotation register, CRM, ERP or job-management system. These are examples for feasibility review, not claims of certified connectors or universal compatibility.

• Assess how the existing mailbox, shared drive and quotation register can be accessed with the minimum permissions needed.
• Confirm which catalogue, price list and terms are authoritative, who maintains them and how revisions are identified.
• Review available APIs, exports and import formats before agreeing any integration; a controlled file handoff may be more appropriate than a direct system write.

A scoped pilot: deliverables and prerequisites

Start with a bounded RFQ category, a defined team and representative request formats. The assessment establishes the current process, dependencies and acceptance criteria before a pilot is priced or scheduled. A working pilot is a validation step, not an automatic production rollout.

• Deliverables: current-state and proposed-state process maps; an agreed field schema and quotation template; a demonstrable draft-and-review workflow; exception cases and test results.
• Handover: reviewer guidance, documented access and approval boundaries, baseline-versus-pilot measurements and a recommendation for deployment or further changes.
• Prerequisites: approved representative RFQs, including difficult examples; current reference data and terms; a process owner, commercial approver and staff time for validation.
• Integration access: permission from the system owner, suitable API or export access, an agreed test environment and clear rules for what the pilot may read or write. Never send passwords or confidential RFQs in an initial enquiry.
• After validation: separately agree production controls, staff training, monitoring, incident ownership and ongoing support scope.

Measurement goals for the pilot

Agree a baseline using comparable RFQs and define when the quotation clock starts and stops. These are measurement objectives, not claims of achieved savings or guaranteed results.

• Median turnaround time: request receipt to approved quotation, separating time waiting for customer information where useful.
• Preparation effort: staff hours spent extracting, checking and drafting each quotation, including reviewer corrections.
• Manual rework rate: the proportion of drafts requiring correction, with reasons such as incorrect units, missing requirements or outdated reference data.
• Follow-up reliability: the proportion of enquiries followed up within the agreed window, alongside overdue items and ownership gaps.