Fynd · Impetus · Costing Engine Research, UX & UI design
Understanding the quote
before choosing the supplier.
I designed a costing workspace that puts vendor quotes beside the bill of materials and carries approved sample costs into bulk—so people compare differences instead of rebuilding the quote.
See sample-to-bulk reuseThe difficulty
The total hid the detail.
The next form repeated the work.
PMs compared style-level prices while colour-specific calculations lived in spreadsheets. Vendors then entered costs again for bulk, even when those inputs had already been agreed during sampling.
What informed the design: costing requirements described offline option calculations and repeated submissions. My review notes questioned missing buyer visibility and carry-forward context. I owned research, UX and UI design; vendor-flow design was collaborative with Rishabh, and engineering implemented the product.
01 / Compare
See why one quote differs.
I aligned vendor quotes with the same bill of materials (BOM), keeping quantity, unit price and colour totals separate.
An iteration: my design notes replaced ambiguous quantity chevrons with explicit +/− values. The table became wider, but explained the difference instead of just signalling one.
Comparison variants
02 / Negotiate
Challenge the item,
not an unexplained total.
I kept desired quantity, desired cost and item-level comments beside the BOM. The vendor submits a revised quote against that request; the PM can see what changed.
Vendor entry and spreadsheet-assisted quoting
03 / Reuse
Review the differences.
Don’t start again.
Sample costing was introduced to reduce duplicate form filling. Approved costs become the bulk baseline; vendors enter only new or changed inputs.
- The difficulty
- Agree sample costs → enter the same costs again for bulk → reconstruct what changed.
- What I changed
- Agree sample costs → carry them forward → review and price only the differences.
In PLM, the Buyer moves the RFQ from Approved for Costing to Shortlisted for Buying to start bulk costing. Shortlisting does not replace the Buyer’s final purchase approval.
Cost approvals and the purchase-order handoff
Cost closure is not purchase approval.
With an approved sample, bulk cost differences within tolerance and costs within budget, eligible costing can close automatically. Outside those conditions, it needs review or renegotiation.
- 01
PM · Negotiate and review the cost
The PM agrees the quote. Acceptance does not waive required exception approvals.
- 02
Resolve the applicable overshoots
If an individual cost item exceeds tolerance
COE · Review the item
The relevant COE is alerted to approve or reject that item-level exception.
If an option / FOB cost exceeds tolerance
Format Head · Review the overall cost
The Format Head reviews the option-level / FOB overshoot.
When both apply, both approvals must clear before Buyer review. Neither is a blanket approval step for every RFQ.
- 03
Buyer · Make the final purchase decision
The Buyer owns the brand’s P&L and decides what to buy and how much. Finalised RFQ costs return to Buy Plan for review across the brand’s styles and options. The buyer can change quantities, remove options or styles, or defer a style before finalising the buy.
- 04
Distribution & assortment · Allocate the final buy
Only after final Buyer approval does the finalised Buy Plan feed distribution and assortment planning, which defines store-level quantities down to style, option and size.
- 05
Procuro · Create the purchase orders
The allocation plans and purchasing data—including supplier details, approved costs, the BOM and tech pack—feed Procuro’s PO engine, which creates purchase orders to send to vendors. Cost closure alone is not the PO trigger.
I designed the costing journey and handoff requirements. Engineering implemented the integration; Procuro generates the purchase orders downstream.
Impact
Less re-entry.
A clearer basis for agreement.
- shorter RFQ approval cycle
- 60%
- 10 → 4 working days
- From vendor sample-cost submission to final buyer approval. BOM-aligned comparison and contextual negotiation keep the decision in one workflow.
- fewer cost fields re-entered
- 74%
- Sample costs carry forward into bulk
- Vendors enter only new or changed costs. The change summary makes differences visible instead of asking them to fill the same RFQ again.
Re-entry reduction combines field comparisons and observed vendor submissions.
What I would validate next
Next measure: clarification rounds and correction rates, separating unchanged RFQs from those with a changed BOM. Check that less re-entry also means fewer errors, not just faster submission.