The quote the new system printed was not our quote

The new quoting system prices your bespoke items correctly, 30-odd of them, each from its own formula, discount applied, tax applied. Your salesperson looks at the printout and will not send it. It does not look like a quotation from your company. The purchasing clerk at the customer’s end, who files these against the site drawings, would not know what to do with it either.

That is where a new system stalls. Not on a wrong number, but on a document nobody will put their name on. While that stays true, the old spreadsheet and the old template keep being used, and the system that was meant to replace them is a second place to type the same job.

The business had described its quotation on a requirements call. The description was accurate and it was not enough. What settled it was asking for three of their real quotations and reading them.

What was actually going on

A conversation produces what people remember about their process. A document produces what the process actually does. The three documents were deliberately different: a long priced quotation of eight pages and over 60 line items, a bill of quantities with no prices at all, and a short two-page quote. Between them they answered questions the call had left open.

Lines are grouped by where the equipment goes in the customer’s building. Preparation area, wash area, store area, plumbing, each under a bold header. Not by product category and not in the order things were configured. The software had no idea of that grouping at all.

The first column is not always a number. One document ran a plain sequence. Another used short keys made from the section, a two-letter prefix and a number. Those keys exist because the site layout drawings carry them, and a fitter on site matches the key on the drawing to the key on the quote. Two of the customer’s own documents disagreed about which to use, which is itself the requirement: the format has to be a choice per quotation, not a company setting.

Every item has a specification line underneath it. Smaller type, listing the grade and the sheet gauge of each part: top, bowl, legs, undershelf, covering, doors. That line is what tells a buyer they are dealing with a serious fabricator rather than someone guessing. Nobody had asked for it, and the system already held every fact it needed to print it, because the grade and the material of every part had been chosen when the item was priced. It was the largest piece of unclaimed value in the whole document.

Dimensions carry additions. Not just length by breadth by height, but a trailing addition for a collar or a splashback allowance, and on an overhead shelf, two of them. Print the bare numbers and every reader in the trade sees something wrong.

Some items have no dimensions at all, just a standard marker, because they are bought-in branded units. They sit in the same table as the fabricated items, with different content, rather than in a separate list at the end. And one section restarts its own numbering to list consumables with their own rates and quantities, which is a different kind of line again.

The two arguments it settled

Transport, unloading and installation appear as their own line after the item total. The business had said this is charged after discount and before tax, with tax worked out on the total including it. The document confirmed the position and the wording.

In the long quotation, tax was not applied at all. It was stated as extra as applicable and left for the customer’s own accounts department to add. That is the more consequential finding, because the same business, in the same year, sends quotations with tax calculated and quotations with tax declared and not calculated. Tax handling had to be a choice per quotation. Had it been built as a company-wide setting, the first real quote would have needed a workaround.

Nobody would have said that on a call. People describe their common case and genuinely believe it is the whole case. Their exceptions are in their documents.

What we changed

The printed quotation, the spreadsheet export and the on-screen review now all group lines by section, carry a key per line that defaults to the section initials plus a running number and can be edited, print the specification line from data the system already held, print dimensions with their additions, and show bought-in units in the same table with a standard marker.

What it did not change, deliberately

One assumption was written down before any of this started: sections and line keys are for display and organisation only. They do not affect the price, the totals, or anything the pricing rules do. A section is a label a line carries; the totals add up the same lines the same way regardless of how they are grouped.

Writing that down is what kept the work small. The other reading, that a section might one day carry its own subtotal, its own discount, its own tax treatment, is entirely plausible and would have been a much larger build. If the business wants section subtotals later, that is a new request with its own estimate, not something that was always implied.

The mechanism

The three outputs share one assembler. It produces a single description of the quotation, grouped and keyed, and the printed document, the export and the review screen each render that description. Three renderers with their own idea of how to group lines would drift, and they would drift silently, because nobody opens all three outputs of the same quote and compares them. The same assembler is what keeps redaction consistent on the public link.

The rule that came out of it: before designing any document a business sends to its customers, ask for three real examples and insist on more than one, because the variation between them is where the requirements are. Read them for structure rather than styling, and for every element that carries information, ask whether the system already holds the data to produce it.

Where this ends up

The quotation Quote prints was laid out from three of the customer’s own documents, and the printed version, the spreadsheet export and the on-screen review are built from one description so they cannot disagree.