The quotation process that stalls in engineering
A supplier loses four days in its quotation process — not in costing, but in the queries forced by an incomplete request.
It is not costing that slows things down, it is engineering chasing missing details. A mandatory-field form at intake would remove half the waiting time — with no new software.
4.6working days
In 8 of 10 cases between 1.8 and 11.2 days.
Technische Klärung
In 62 of 100 simulated runs this step was the hold-up.
€41,000
Per year. Estimated between €32,000 and €54,000.
€26,000
Per year. Estimated between €18,000 and €35,000.
Quotation
- Industry
- Mechanical engineering supplier
- Size
- 45 Mitarbeitende
- Cases per year
- 550
- Fully loaded rate
- €75 / h
- Simulated runs
- 500
- Date
- March 2026
Sales reports that quotes “take too long”. The in-house suspicion: costing is too slow. Costing, in turn, says it is permanently waiting on engineering.
The process has six steps and four roles. 550 quotes per year, calculated at a fully loaded rate of €75 per hour. Before anyone proposes new software, the process is modelled and simulated over 500 runs.
Six steps, four roles, one measurable path
The process modelled in FlowVisual. ↯ marks a media break — the point where data is retyped from one system into the next.
| Step | Role | System | Duration P10–P90 | Bottleneck |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01Anfrage erfassen | Vertriebsinnendienst | CRM | 10–25 min | 2 % |
| 02Technische KlärungBottleneck | Konstruktion | E-Mail / Excel↯ | 60–240 min | 62 % |
| 03Kalkulation | Kalkulation | Excel↯ | 45–120 min | 11 % |
| 04Freigabe | Vertriebsleitung | 15–480 min | 19 % | |
| 05Angebot schreiben | Vertriebsinnendienst | Word / CRM↯ | 30–60 min | 4 % |
| 06Versand & Nachfassen | Vertrieb | CRM | 10–20 min | 2 % |
500 runs, one clear answer
Every chart below shows before against after. Values are labelled directly — the colour is a second signal, never the only one.
12
Angebote/Woche
34 %
1.8–11.2working days
Technische Klärung — 62 %
Costing is not the bottleneck. In 62 % of runs it is technical clarification: the request arrives incomplete, engineering has to chase details, and the case sits idle in the meantime.
Engineering runs structurally above capacity (118 %). On a third of all days the capacity ceiling breaks. That is not a motivation problem, it is arithmetic.
The cost does not come from the work itself but from rework on incomplete requests: roughly 550 hours a year that nobody planned for.
A mandatory-field form. No new software.
The obvious reflex would have been a CPQ system. The measurement says: unnecessary. The bottleneck forms at the intake, not in processing.
The intervention would be two changes: request intake would get mandatory fields for the six details engineering always asks for anyway. And technical clarification would move out of the email inbox into the CRM where the case already lives.
Intake would therefore take longer — 15 to 30 minutes instead of 10 to 25. That would be deliberate: time at the intake is cheaper than time in the bottleneck.
Median lead time down 48 %
- How long it takes
- 4.6 → 2.4 working days
- Throughput
- 12 → 16
- Days over capacity
- 34 % → 12 %
- Saving per year
- €26,000
Median lead time halves from 4.6 to 2.4 days. Engineering drops from 118 % to 89 % utilisation, days over capacity from 34 % to 12 %.
The bottleneck does not disappear, it moves. The new most likely bottleneck, at 35 %, is sign-off by the sales director — previously hidden behind engineering. This is the normal outcome of an optimisation, and it is why the FLOW method is a cycle, not a project.
Whoever wanted to go further would measure again. Whoever stopped here would still have gained €26,000 a year and two days of lead time — in the model.
What this analysis cannot tell you
Every measurement has limits. A measurement that hides them is advertising.
- 01
This is a sample analysis. Process, roles and timings are constructed from typical mid-market structures, not collected at a client. It shows what an analysis looks like — not what your result will be.
- 02
Processing times are estimated ranges, not stopwatch measurements. The simulation uses triangular distributions between P10 and P90.
- 03
Lead time is counted in working days. Holidays, sickness and public holidays are not modelled — real values will tend to be higher, not lower.
- 04
All euro figures assume a fully loaded rate of €75/h and 550 cases per year. Both are assumptions. Different inputs produce different results — which is why we publish the range, not a point value.
- 05
P10–P90 is not a worst case. In 10 % of cases it takes longer than the P90 value.
Your process will look different.
This analysis is a sample. Your numbers are not. With FlowVisual you model your own process and get the same evaluation — on your machine, with your values.