Begilhan Gungor
Back to the overview

Improve the work. Then choose the technology.

I map how work gets done, question unnecessary steps and design the remaining work around clear responsibilities.

From an incomplete request to a supported quotation.

Illustrative process design · Technical sales and sourcing

“We need replacements before next Friday. Here are the old parts list and photographs. Equivalent products are acceptable.”
What I would check before changing the process

For this illustrative request, I would first check where clarification and repeated work arise. The causes below are hypotheses to test, not findings from an actual client project.

What would need to change? · Gap analysis
Gap to investigateRequired conditionProposed change and check
The old list and photos may leave requirements unclear.Agreed requirements for evaluating replacements.Record requirements once, flag unknowns and confirm them with the customer or technical owner.
A replacement reference may not establish suitability.Traceable evidence of technical suitability.Use a fixed lookup first, then bounded investigation if needed. Keep technical approval with an authorised employee.
Separate documents may cause repeated comparison work.One current comparison linked to its sources.Maintain a shared version; check its sources and record the reviewer’s corrections.
Possible causes to investigate · Fishbone

Clarification and rework before quotation

Request information
  • Missing specifications
  • Unclear substitutions
References
  • Outdated part codes
  • Uncertain equivalents
Working method
  • Repeated entry
  • Rebuilt comparisons
Dependencies
  • Supplier replies
  • Technical review queue

How I would check this

Review a sample of requests, revisions and supplier replies with the people doing the work. Measure handling, waiting and repeated work separately. Distinguish internal queues from supplier response time; required technical checks and commercial approvals stay.

A representative process and its proposed redesign.

Before · repeat, wait, rebuild

Before: sequential enquiries and repeated workRepresentative current process: read a customer request, copy details into separate records, search references, ask suppliers sequentially, wait, rebuild the comparison and repeat checks before an authorised quotation. No measured timings are implied.Read requestReadrequestCopy detailsCopydetailsSearch referencesSearchreferencesAsk suppliersAsksuppliersWait for repliesWait forrepliesRebuild comparisonRebuildcomparisonRecheck & authoriseRecheck &authorisePrepare quotationPreparequotation
Before: sequential enquiries and repeated workRepresentative current process: read a customer request, copy details into separate records, search references, ask suppliers sequentially, wait, rebuild the comparison and repeat checks before an authorised quotation. No measured timings are implied.Read requestReadrequestCopy detailsCopydetailsSearch referencesSearchreferencesAsk suppliersAsksuppliersWait for repliesWait forrepliesRebuild comparisonRebuildcomparisonRecheck & authoriseRecheck &authorisePrepare quotationPreparequotation

After · coordinate, investigate, decide

After: parallel checks, conditional investigation and employee authorityProposed redesign: n8n captures one requirements record and coordinates independent internal-record and supplier checks in parallel. A clear reference bypasses the agent. An unclear reference goes to bounded investigation, which may choose its next permitted check and returns evidence or a flagged gap. Alternative reference routes merge before joining the internal checks; both streams must return. Software maintains the comparison and validates evidence and calculations. Insufficient evidence stops for clarification with no quotation. Sufficient evidence goes to authorised employees for technical and commercial review. Only their approved version becomes a quotation. Changed requirements or terms require the affected checks again.ParallelBoth inputsYesNoWithin limitsYesNoApproved onlyRequirements captured oncen8nRequirementscaptured onceIndependent checksInternal records Stock / catalogueSoftwareInternal recordsStock / catalogueSupplier evidence Terms / availabilityn8n / toolsSupplier evidenceTerms / availabilityClear match?Clearmatch?Investigate / flag gapsBounded agentInvestigate /flag gapsEither reference routeBoth streams returnedMaintain comparison Validate / calculateSoftwareMaintain comparisonValidate / calculateEvidence enough?Evidenceenough?Review & authoriseAuthorised employeesReview & authorisePrepare quotationn8n / softwarePrepare quotationClarify / hand over No quotationCase ownerClarify / hand overNo quotation
After: parallel checks, conditional investigation and employee authorityProposed redesign: n8n captures one requirements record and coordinates independent internal-record and supplier checks in parallel. A clear reference bypasses the agent. An unclear reference goes to bounded investigation, which may choose its next permitted check and returns evidence or a flagged gap. Alternative reference routes merge before joining the internal checks; both streams must return. Software maintains the comparison and validates evidence and calculations. Insufficient evidence stops for clarification with no quotation. Sufficient evidence goes to authorised employees for technical and commercial review. Only their approved version becomes a quotation. Changed requirements or terms require the affected checks again.In parallelBoth inputsYesNoRecheckYesNoApprovedRequirements captured oncen8nRequirementscaptured onceIndependent checksStock / catalogueSoftwareStock /catalogueSupplier evidencen8n / toolsSupplierevidenceClear match?Clearmatch?Investigate / flag gapsAgentInvestigate /flag gapsEither reference routeBoth streams returnedCompare, validate and calculateSoftwareCompare, validateand calculateEvidence enough?Evidenceenough?Review & authoriseEmployeesReview &authorisePrepare quotationn8nPreparequotationClarify / hand over No quotationCase ownerClarify /hand overNo quotation
Eliminate
Repeated entry of the same requirements.
Combine
Supplier responses in one comparison.
Rearrange
Run independent checks in parallel.
Simplify
Retrieve references with their sources.

Technical checks and commercial approval stay. This stage moves information and documents; ordering, physical delivery and payment follow later.

How n8n, an agent and employees divide the work

Process in words

Before: copy the request, search references, send enquiries, wait and rebuild the comparison before review. After: capture once, collect independent inputs in parallel and maintain one checked comparison. A clear reference skips the agent. An unclear one triggers bounded investigation and returns evidence or a flagged gap. Both input streams must return.

  • Insufficient evidence: clarify or hand over. Stop this run. No quotation.
  • Sufficient evidence: employees verify technical suitability and authorise substitutions and commercial terms.
  • Prepare and verify the quotation from the approved version. Changed requirements or terms return for the affected checks.
n8n
Coordinates events, integrations, routing, waits and permitted follow-ups.
Conventional software
Performs fixed lookups, validation, calculations and structured comparisons.
Bounded agent
Chooses the next authorised source or tool when references are unclear; checks findings and prepares options with evidence. Stops or hands over when it cannot substantiate an answer.
Employees
Resolve uncertainty, verify technical equivalence and authorise commercial commitments.

A fixed query does not need an agent. For a discontinued reference, an agent may inspect a catalogue, discover a successor with different specifications, identify a missing requirement and choose the next permitted check. The framework keeps tool access, evidence, investigation limits and human handover explicit.

The intended benefits are less repeated research and fewer internal queues. A pilot would measure handling time, waiting, rework and the reviewer’s corrections. Supplier response time remains an external dependency. This scenario is a design illustration, not a connected n8n deployment.

n8n · Workflow logic · n8n · Human review

Six activities

The six activities behind this approach

Understand.

  1. Understand

  2. Map & analyse

Redesign.

  1. Eliminate & simplify

  2. Redesign & allocate

Implement.

  1. Select & implement

  2. Validate & improve

Understand

Define the objective, boundaries, constraints and ownership; plan a measurable baseline.

Map & analyse

Map sequence, responsibilities, information, exceptions, repeated work and waiting.

Eliminate & simplify

Question unnecessary work with ECRS, while preserving justified controls and dependencies.

Redesign & allocate

Define the future workflow, acceptance criteria, exceptions and accountable task allocation.

Select & implement

Choose the least complex adequate solution; define tools, permissions and pilot ownership.

Validate & improve

Test normal and exception cases; compare the whole process with its baseline.

Applied work

Employment contact · Oslo, Norway

Discuss a role

For a conversation about a relevant role, contact me by email or LinkedIn.

Contact me on LinkedIn