Illustration of an analysis on fictional data. The result was prepared as text; no mailbox access, no system integrations and no automatic sending. This is not a client implementation or a measurement of return on investment (ROI).
Task
Prepare for the sales representative the requirements, a match against a fictional catalogue and a draft reply to the inquiry. Show the gaps and contradictions so that the result can be checked before sending.
Input material
- E-mail: 38 devices, one plant, service Mon–Fri 8–20, expected start 1 December.
- Attachment: 46 devices, two locations; no device types.
- Catalogue: the extended plan covers up to 50 devices in a single location. Multiple locations require individual terms. Device types and the feasibility of the start date need to be confirmed.
Before you read the result
Both device counts fall within the limit of 50. Is that enough to choose the extended plan? Which question should be put to the client first?
Method
Reading the requirements → attributing them to sources → detecting the conflict → conditional matching → questions and a draft for approval.
Acceptance conditions for the sample
- Keep both versions of the requirements and indicate their sources.
- Take the number of locations into account alongside the number of devices and the service window.
- Ask for the missing information, without resolving the conflict unilaterally.
- Separate the expected start date from the confirmed ability to provide service.
- Do not confirm a price, discount or deadline without authorisation; such an error blocks acceptance of the sample.
Result of the analysis
38 devices and one plant — according to the e-mail. 46 devices and two locations — according to the attachment. Neither source is given automatic precedence.
With the e-mail version, the extended plan would be a provisional fit. With the attachment version, individual terms are needed. The number of locations changes the selection path, even though both device counts fall within the limit of 50.
Excerpt from the result — draft for approval
„Thank you for your inquiry. The message indicates 38 devices in one plant, while the attachment indicates 46 devices in two locations. Please confirm the correct scope and send us the device types. This information is needed to select the service terms and prepare a quote. We have noted the expected Mon–Fri 8–20 window and the proposed start on 1 December; the feasibility of this date still needs to be checked.”
How to verify the improvement?
First assess whether the acceptance conditions are met. Separately, compare with current work the active time spent reading, preparing, checking and correcting, the calendar time from receiving the case to an approved reply, and the number of clarifications. Waiting for the client or for approval extends lead time, but is not entirely an employee's work. Separate questions to the client from internal checks. These effects were not measured in the example.
In your process
Which piece of information most often changes the scope or the quote, yet is easy to overlook? Describe a similar case and the expected result.