Get technical enquiries quote-ready without tying up your senior team.
Most of the waste is not the engineering decision. It is the work around it: incomplete emails, repeated lookups, chasing missing details and rebuilding context. That is the part we automate.
OMFB's own inputs show 1,056 specialist hours/year spent on technical specification lookups alone.The obvious place to start is technical lookup.
OMFB told us its team handles about eight technical specification lookups a day. At 30 minutes each, that is 1,056 specialist hours a year. Enough senior time is tied up in retrieval and preparation to make this worth testing properly.
The useful work happens before anyone chooses a part.
A customer sends an incomplete enquiry. Instead of a senior person starting from scratch, the system prepares the context and makes the missing information obvious.
Incoming enquiry
Structured handoff
Missing before technical review
- Transmission / gearbox model
- Current PTO / pump reference or plate photo
- Required flow / pressure or confirmed operating requirement
AI handles the preparation. Your team keeps the engineering judgement.
It can structure, retrieve, draft and surface the right context. It also needs to know when it does not have enough information. Fitment and safety-critical decisions stay with qualified people.
Automate
Extract the enquiry, retrieve approved information and prepare the handoff.
Control
Apply your pricing, customer and workflow rules without hiding exceptions.
Approve
Fitment, pressure, flow and safety-critical decisions stay with qualified people.
How much senior time is quote prep actually consuming?
Start with the workload you already know. We show the current cost first, then let you test how much of the preparation work might realistically be addressable.
Your current quote workflow
Three inputs. Nothing hidden behind an industry average.
Your full diagnostic
Test one workflow before you build anything bigger.
We take one repeatable piece of technical-sales work, map how it actually happens, check the data behind it and test a controlled prototype on your own historical enquiries.
Think one workflow, branch or product family, with the technical lead and whoever owns the relevant data involved in the test.
Pilots are scoped to the business. A single-site workshop and a multi-branch distributor are different pieces of work, so we scope the workflow before you commit. You’ll know the scope and price before anything starts.
If the Pilot moves into implementation for the same workflow, the pilot fee is credited in full toward the build.Map the real workflow
Where the enquiry comes from, who touches it, what gets looked up and where the delay actually sits.
Check the data
What is reliable, what is messy, what suppliers allow us to use and what still lives in someone’s head.
Test historical enquiries
Run a controlled prototype on work your team already knows the answer to. Nothing customer-facing yet.
Decide whether to build
If the workflow is useful, accurate and commercially worthwhile, scope production. If it is not, stop.
Good reasons to be sceptical.
A technical business should be difficult to impress with AI. These are the questions we expect before you let us anywhere near a production workflow.
Our product data is a mess.
That's normal. The first question is not whether the data is perfect; it is whether enough of it is reliable to support the workflow. If it isn't, we find that out before a production build.
We already have an ERP.
Good. We are not trying to replace it. The useful layer sits around the enquiry and technical-sales process, then reads from or writes back to the systems you already trust where that makes sense.
Our senior techs won't trust AI.
The system earns trust by staying inside a narrow job: organise the enquiry, retrieve approved information and flag what is missing. Technical judgement stays with the people who are accountable for it.
We tried a chatbot and it was useless.
A chatbot answers questions. This workflow structures real work against approved sources, flags exceptions and hands the decision back to your team.
Nothing technical goes live because the demo looked good.
We test it against work your team already knows. If it cannot prepare useful context without overstepping, it does not go into production.
If this is a real bottleneck, show us the workflow.
You do not need a polished brief. Show us how the work comes in, who handles it and where the senior time disappears. We'll tell you quickly whether it is worth pursuing.