Define what the customer is asking you to make
A contractor sending finished drawings needs a different intake path from a homeowner who needs design help. Likewise, a request for cut panels is different from assembled cabinetry. Start by identifying the customer, the requested service and the information available. The first goal is a reviewable brief; calculating a price comes later.
There is a concrete local example of this distinction. Xpress Woodworks’ public FAQ describes a Pompano Beach business serving Fort Lauderdale and other South Florida locations. It distinguishes homeowner design and installation from manufacturing-only work for trade partners, and invites plans, CAD files, cut lists or sketch photos subject to compatibility review.
Xpress is a public reference, not an ALCA client case study. Its published services illustrate the variety an intake process may need to distinguish; they do not establish how its internal workflow performs. The checklist below is ALCA’s proposed design for a manufacturer assessing its own process.
Ask for information that changes the next decision
Use a short first step, then show questions relevant to the selected work. Allow “not known yet” where a conversation or design review is needed. An empty field should create a question for the owner, not an invented specification.
Proposed manufacturing quote-intake matrix
| Input | What to collect | What the reviewer decides |
|---|---|---|
| Customer and role | Contact, company and homeowner or trade partner | Who can clarify the request? |
| Requested work | Cutting, edge banding, assembly or design help | Does this fit the shop’s service scope? |
| Quantity | Parts, assemblies or sets; label the unit | Does the quantity match the supplied list? |
| Material and finish | Requested specification or an unresolved choice | What must be clarified before estimating? |
| Drawing package | Files, revision, dimensions and stated units | Are the files usable and mutually consistent? |
| Responsibility | Who supplies material and handles installation | Which work belongs in the quotation? |
| Timing and destination | Requested date and pickup or delivery preference | What needs a separate capacity or delivery check? |
These are suggested fields, not manufacturing specifications. The shop determines the technical information and review appropriate to each job.
A successful upload does not confirm a usable drawing
Tie attachments to a stable request ID and record which package the customer says is current. Preserve the original filenames and identify replacements. A PDF, CAD file and cut list may describe different revisions; ask the customer to resolve the conflict rather than selecting whichever attachment arrived last.
The reviewer confirms whether the shop can open the files and whether the information is sufficient for its next step. File acceptance does not confirm dimensions, manufacturability or machine compatibility. This intake workflow does not convert drawings into production instructions or replace CAD/CAM review.
Move the request through a small, visible review queue
- 1Receive. Give the submission an ID, preserve its selected service and acknowledge receipt without promising a price or production slot.
- 2Assign. Name the person who checks scope and attachments. Link repeat messages to the same request after confirming they belong together.
- 3Clarify. Record missing inputs as specific questions. Keep the request awaiting clarification while required answers remain unresolved.
- 4Prepare. Summarize the agreed request, current files and unresolved assumptions. Keep customer preferences distinct from facts the shop has confirmed.
- 5Hand over. Let the estimator accept the brief or return it with a reason. Commercial pricing, customer acceptance and production authorization remain later decisions.
A useful status answers what happens next and who owns it. “Files received” and “ready for estimating” should therefore be separate states.
A cabinet request with two different quantities
Fictional example, not a customer project
A Broward cabinet installer submits request M-104 for ten assemblies, with a PDF and a cut list. The cut list refers to eight assemblies, and the message does not say whether the request includes assembly or only prepared parts.
The intake owner asks the installer to confirm quantity and service scope. The installer supplies a revised list for ten assemblies and confirms cutting and edge banding only. The owner retains the earlier package as superseded, links the current files and records who will assemble the parts.
The estimator now has an identified package and scope to review. The request still needs the shop’s technical and capacity checks; no software has inferred a price or authorized cutting. If the installer changes the material next, the affected request returns for review.
Choose tools after testing the handoff
A form, restricted file storage and a shared request list may cover the process. Test existing CRM or manufacturing software for conditional questions, attachments, ownership and clarification states before adding another application. Use a sample request with conflicting quantities, not only a complete submission.
An integration may address a missing handoff between accepted requests and the estimator’s queue. A custom intake layer is worth evaluating when tested tools cannot preserve the required package or review rules. Scope that gap before expanding into a custom quoting system; pricing logic is a separate requirement.
Before handing the brief to an estimator
- The customer, clarification contact and request owner are identified.
- Requested services and supply or installation responsibilities are explicit.
- Quantities, units and material choices are confirmed or visibly unresolved.
- The current drawing package is identified; conflicting files have an owner.
- Requested timing is distinguished from a confirmed commitment.
- The estimator accepts the brief or records what is missing.
Try this on a few representative requests. Track clarification rounds, missing inputs and requests returned by the estimator. Use those observations to decide whether a form change, configuration or integration is justified.
Sources and related workflow decisions
Xpress Woodworks’ manufacturing page describes CNC cutting, edge banding, assembly, prototypes and overflow production. Its published service descriptions and the FAQ linked above provide the local context for this guide.
For the broader decision, compare custom software and SaaS. If customer access is the remaining gap, read the client portal guide. See software services for Fort Lauderdale businesses for a scoped starting point.