Commercial consistency
Scope, assumptions, exclusions, fees, and schedule had to remain aligned across proposal and SOW.
Representative engagement 02 · Professional services
Proposal-to-SOW automation with controlled approval and project handoff
A Microsoft-based workflow designed to turn approved opportunity inputs into consistent proposals, statements of work, SharePoint records, and downstream project setup.
Why TemenTemen approaches proposal automation as an operating-system problem, not a document-generation trick. We connect process design, structured data, Power Platform, SharePoint, approvals, exceptions, and delivery handoff so the automation supports the business relationship instead of creating hidden commitments.Why nowRepeated re-entry increased cycle time and created opportunities for scope, assumptions, fees, schedules, approvals, and delivery setup to drift apart.
Case executive summary
One approved set of facts moving from opportunity to delivery.
A professional-services organization whose sales and delivery teams repeated engagement data across disconnected tools.
The source record contains the before-state, phased implementation plan, integration dependencies, acceptance criteria, and intended operating value. It does not contain a final quantified outcome report.
- Outcome
- Commercial workflow control
- Engagement
- Project
- Artifact
- Source, generation, review, and approval flow
01 What was the issue?
Information was repeatedly copied between CRM, meeting notes, presentation files, Word templates, spreadsheets, approvals, file storage, and project-management systems.
Start with the situation itself. The technology request mattered, but so did the workflow, constraints, ownership, and condition the customer needed to change.
The organization’s sales-to-delivery process crossed many useful tools, but the tools did not share one controlled representation of the engagement. Teams copied scope, assumptions, staffing, timing, and pricing from one artifact to another.
The answer was not to let an AI issue commercial commitments. The solution design separated drafting from authority: automation could assemble, compare, route, store, and prepare downstream setup, while designated owners approved client-facing language and project creation.
THE REAL ISSUEThe request could not be solved safely by selecting a tool alone. The operating path and the technical response had to be designed together.
02 What was the impact?
Repeated re-entry increased cycle time and created opportunities for scope, assumptions, fees, schedules, approvals, and delivery setup to drift apart.
The impact explains why the issue deserved action. It connects the technical problem to the people, customers, continuity, cost, risk, and ownership affected by it.
Delivery readiness
Approved commitments needed to arrive in project setup without another manual reconstruction.
Connector reality
External CRM and professional-services APIs could affect what was technically feasible.
Exception ownership
Missing fields, rejected approvals, and connector failures needed visible recovery paths.
03 How did we solve it?
We standardized the facts before automating the documents and handoff.
Temen connected discovery, design, implementation, control, testing, and handoff. Each phase produced evidence that made the next decision safer and kept the customer's operating owner visible.
Map the work
Document the current process, source systems, templates, owners, repeated entry, approvals, and failure points.
Evidence: Current-state map, data inventory, decision registerStandardize the information
Define reusable fields, SharePoint metadata, naming, permissions, and controlled Word and presentation templates.
Evidence: Information architecture, data model, templatesBuild the orchestration
Create flows for intake, document assembly, review, approval, storage, notification, and exception handling.
Evidence: Solution package, flow map, exception routesConnect the handoff
Use approved connectors or APIs to prepare downstream project, budget, and planning records where feasible.
Evidence: Mapping specification, integration testsTest and transition
Run standard, rejected, incomplete, retry, and failure scenarios before cutover and administrator handoff.
Evidence: UAT results, runbook, training, hypercare logSee the solution logic at work
Run a proposal package through its approval and exception path.
Advance a simulated engagement from approved intake to document generation and project handoff, or introduce a missing commercial field to see the workflow stop safely.
Approved intakeScope owner confirms the reusable engagement facts.
Document assemblyWord and presentation drafts use the controlled data model.
Commercial reviewA named approver validates scope, assumptions, and pricing.
Final filingApproved versions and metadata move into SharePoint.
Project handoffDelivery setup receives the approved project record.
Approved intake
Scope owner confirms the reusable engagement facts.
Scope versionv3 · approvedAssumptions6 structured itemsCommercial ownerAssignedProject recordHeld
This demonstration uses staged, synthetic data. It explains the solution pattern without connecting to a customer environment or reproducing private customer records.
How the solution connects
The components only matter when the operating path connects.
This view shows where information enters, what coordinates the work, where authority lives, and what the customer can continue operating after implementation.
Opportunity and discoveryApproved customer, scope, meeting, and commercial inputs.
↓Structured intakeA reusable data model for scope, assumptions, deliverables, timing, and pricing.
↓Power AutomateDocument assembly, review, approval, exception, and notification logic.
↓SharePointControlled templates, metadata, generated versions, and final records.
↓Project systemsApproved setup data for planning, budgeting, and delivery handoff.
How the work stays controlled
Useful work must also be reviewable work.
Controls define what the solution may do. Verification shows whether the intended behavior occurred and whether the customer is ready to own the result.
OPERATING CONTROLS01 02 03 04
Draft is not authority
Generated content remains a draft until the designated commercial owner approves it.
Approved source fields
The workflow uses controlled inputs rather than silently extracting commitments from every note.
Version and approval record
The final package retains the version, approver, decision, and related metadata.
Explicit exceptions
Incomplete data, rejected language, connector failures, and duplicate submissions follow visible paths.
VERIFICATION PLAN
Cross-document alignment
Compare scope, assumptions, deliverables, fees, and timing across generated artifacts.
Approval enforcement
Verify no client-ready package bypasses the required business gate.
Failure recovery
Test missing data, API errors, retries, duplicate events, and approval rejection.
Project handoff
Confirm approved data reaches downstream setup without material re-entry.
04 What was the outcome?
One approved set of facts moving from opportunity to delivery.
The designed workflow assembles consistent commercial documents, enforces named approval, retains version history, and prepares the downstream project handoff without automating commercial authority.
HOW TO READ THIS OUTCOMEThe source record contains the before-state, phased implementation plan, integration dependencies, acceptance criteria, and intended operating value. It does not contain a final quantified outcome report.Enter core facts once
Approved information can move through documents and setup without repeated re-keying.
Authority remains visible
Every client-facing output passes through a named human approval.
Cleaner project start
The final scope package and project record begin from the same approved facts.
Clear scope boundaries
What this outcome did not quietly become.
Boundaries protect the customer from hidden assumptions, unapproved authority, and work that belongs in a different engagement.
×No automated commercial approval×No unbounded legal-language generation×No ERP replacement×No connector promise before API and licensing validation
Real work, responsibly represented
Built from engagement evidence.
Customer identity, private infrastructure, personal information, commercial terms, and other sensitive details are deliberately excluded from this public narrative.
- Proposal, SOW, and project-setup automation statement of work
- Power Platform architecture and connector scope
- UAT, training, cutover, and hypercare criteria
Source-backed scope signalThe engagement record maps the workflow across CRM, meetings, SharePoint, Word, PowerPoint, approvals, project setup, and an external professional-services platform.
05 Why choose Temen for you?
Choose Temen when the workflow crosses revenue, delivery, Microsoft 365, and commercial control.
Temen approaches proposal automation as an operating-system problem, not a document-generation trick. We connect process design, structured data, Power Platform, SharePoint, approvals, exceptions, and delivery handoff so the automation supports the business relationship instead of creating hidden commitments.
Revenue and delivery in one design
The proposal, SOW, approvals, final files, and project setup begin from the same controlled information.
Human authority remains explicit
Drafting and assembly can move quickly while commercial approval stays with the designated owner.
Exceptions are first-class work
Missing fields, rejected language, duplicates, API failures, and retries receive visible recovery paths.
Connector claims are validated
Integration scope follows real licensing and API capability rather than assumptions made during a demo.
THIS ENGAGEMENT PATTERN MAY FIT YOU IF
Your organization recognizes these conditions.
- Teams re-key the same engagement facts across several tools
- Proposal and SOW language can become inconsistent
- Delivery rebuilds the project after the sale
- You need automation without automated commercial commitments
Apply the pattern to your organization
Your issue deserves its own evidence, design, and outcome.
Bring the business impact, current workflow, constraints, environment, decision owners, and desired outcome. Temen will determine whether this engagement pattern fits your operating reality.