Sales Enablement Intake Process: The Governance System That Turns Requests Into Results  

Introduction

Establishing the sales enablement function as a true strategic partner is one of the biggest and most common challenges for enablement leaders. 

Even in large, mature revenue orgs, enablement often gets stretched thin – pulled into too many requests from too many stakeholders. 

The result is all too familiar: lots of motion, unclear impact, and a creeping sense of “random acts of enablement.”

Saying “no” isn’t easy – especially when requests come from senior leaders, or when the function is young and eager to prove its value.

That’s exactly why a clear sales enablement intake process matters: one front door for work, a shared way to evaluate requests, and an agreed rhythm to sequence what gets done now vs. later. 

As I’ve come to learn, in other disciplines, a good intake is the bridge between stakeholders and delivery – and it’s often the single most impactful change an organisation can make to reduce overload and increase throughput. 

Enablement benefits in the same way, and when we talk more practically, a strong intake process rests on two pillars:

• Governance – the structure that gives intake legitimacy, including leadership buy-in, clear ownership, defined review cadence, and a single workflow for how requests enter and move through the system
• Prioritisation – the discipline that ensures effort follows impact, including a transparent, evidence-based scoring method (like RICE or WSJF) that helps everyone understand why some work happens now, and some later.

In this article, I’ll walk through what that intake looks like in an enablement context, how it helps both the field and leadership, and how to design and defend it so your sales enablement team stays focused on the work that truly moves the needle.

So, let’s start from the beginning.

What is the sales enablement intake process (and why it matters)

At its simplest, the sales enablement intake process is a structured workflow for capturing, evaluating, and prioritising requests made to the enablement team.

The crux of the concept is the word process. 

It’s not just a form to fill in (though the form is an important piece I’ll cover later). It is a fully fleshed-out sales enablement process which gradually evolves into a governance mechanism – one that defines how enablement work enters the queue and how decisions are made.

It creates a standard way for stakeholders to ask for support, provide context, and share the data behind their request.

In return, enablement gains a clear path for deciding which projects to take on, when, and why.

By employing the intake process, the enablement function moves on from the people-pleasing department I hinted at in the introduction and the entire dynamic changes. 

Requests are filtered, prioritised, and aligned with business goals. 

Stakeholders think more carefully before asking for something, and sales enablement professionals get a defensible framework to decide what gets done with the (limited) resources they have at their disposal.

This matters for three reasons:

• Clarity – Everyone knows how to make a request (from sales reps to the CRO), what information is required, and how decisions will be made.
• Consistency – Initiatives are assessed against the same criteria, reducing bias or politics.
• Discipline – The process insists on evidence, alignment, and ownership. It protects enablement’s limited time and resources, ensuring focus stays on work that moves the revenue needle.

Now that we understand its value, it is time to start laying the groundwork.

Building the foundation

Before you can design forms, rubrics, or scoring models, the intake process needs a solid foundation – a few core conditions everyone agrees on and upholds at all times. 

Without that foundation, even the best-designed workflow will collapse under pressure.

Secure leadership buy-in

The process only works if senior leaders agree to respect it. 

If executives bypass intake with side-door requests, the framework loses credibility. 

Make it clear from the outset: all initiatives, no matter how urgent or senior the stakeholder, flow through the same channel. 

When leadership models this discipline, everyone else follows.

Define ownership

An intake process is only as strong as the people running it. 

Decide who reviews requests, how often reviews happen, and who has authority to approve, defer, or decline.

In smaller teams, this will usually fall to enablement leaders, such as the Head of Enablement. 

In larger functions, you may assign it to enablement ops within the Centre of Excellence (CoE) or apppoint an intake committee with representation from enablement, sales leaders, and RevOps. 

The goal is transparency: stakeholders should know exactly who evaluates their request – and on what timeline.

Choose the right tool

The technology is less important than the rigour of the process itself. 

Start simple – a Google Form that feeds into a spreadsheet, or a shared Asana board where requests can be logged and tracked. 

As the function grows, you can layer on more capable systems like Jira, Monday.com, Airtable or Notion, integrating intake with project management and reporting. 

What matters most is that the tool makes it easy to capture context, share visibility, and keep requests moving through the pipeline.

When these three elements are in place – buy-in, ownership, and a workable tool – the intake process stops being an idea and becomes an operating norm.

Designing the sales enablement intake form – key elements 

The intake form is the centrepiece of the process. 

The process should never be boiled down to the form, but the fact remains that it is essential. 

It’s the point where stakeholders translate their ideas or frustrations into a structured request, and where enablement collects the information it needs to make a fair decision.

I have seen and used quite a few intake forms throughout my career, and here is my selection for the elements that should be included: 

1. Title of initiative 

The title might seem trivial, but it’s the first test of clarity.

If you think about it, having to come up with a good title forces the requester to capture the essence of the initiative in a few words – what it is, and what it aims to achieve.

If the title is vague (“Sales training” or “Call project”), it signals that the problem isn’t yet well-defined.

But if it’s specific (“Improve enterprise discovery for AEs” or “Reduce proposal errors through content standardisation”), it immediately sets direction and focus.

In short, the title should be short, sharp, and self-explanatory.

Good example: “Onboarding refresh for new SDRs – focus on messaging consistency in the first 30 days.”

Weak example: “SDR project.”

2. Requester & role 

Every request should have a clear owner.

You need to know who is raising the request, which function they represent, and what role they play in addressing the problem.

Ideally, the requester is close enough to the issue to describe it accurately and involved enough to support adoption later on.

Good example: “Regional Sales Manager, UKI – leading a team of 8 AEs and noticing inconsistent discovery quality.”

Weak example: “Sales team – we think we need help.”

3. Executive sponsor 

Behind every strong enablement initiative, there’s often a senior leader who stands behind it.

An executive sponsor gives the request weight and continuity. Their support signals that the work matters beyond one team and increases the chances of gaining traction once it’s in motion.

Typically, they champion the initiative, help remove blockers, and advocate for change when priorities compete.

Not every request will have a sponsor from the start, and that’s fine. But when one does, it’s a valuable signal of alignment and commitment that helps enablement prioritise with confidence.

If the requester is already a senior executive, this field may be redundant; their submission alone usually carries that weight.

Good example: “Regional VP of Sales – aware of the issue and supportive of addressing it this quarter.”

Weak example: “None – not discussed with leadership yet.”

4. Audience & reach

Together with the elements above, clarity on who the request is for is critical.

An initiative designed for SDRs will look very different from one aimed at Account Executives or Customer Success Managers. Each group has its own dynamics and faces its own challenges. 

That’s why the intake form should ask who the request affects – specific roles, teams, or regions – and roughly how many people are involved. A clear sense of reach helps estimate effort, prioritise impact, and prevent over- or under-scoping the work.

Vague answers like “the sales team” make it hard to design meaningful solutions. The more specific the audience, the easier it becomes to tailor the right approach later.

Good example: “Primarily SDRs in North America, with secondary impact on SDR managers (coaching expected).”

Weak example: “Everyone. From interns to the CFO’s dog.”

5. Problem / expectation gap 

I’ve seen many enablement requests start with a solution already in mind – “we need training on X” or “let’s create a new deck.”

But when you ask what’s actually happening in the field, the real issue often sounds very different.

For this reason, before jumping to solutions, the requester should describe what’s not working as expected – what gap they see between current and desired performance.

It could be that reps aren’t qualifying properly, that onboarding takes too long, or that managers aren’t coaching consistently. Whatever it is, clarity here sets the foundation for everything that follows.

This field isn’t about guessing why the problem exists or how to fix it; that comes later with enablement’s support.

The goal is simply to describe the gap in plain language: what behaviour, outcome, or process isn’t meeting expectations.

A well-defined problem statement helps separate genuine performance issues from surface-level frustrations and helps stop the conversation from turning into “we need training” by default.

Good example: “Discovery calls often skip stakeholder mapping, leading to limited visibility into buying committees.” Or “Sales managers spend most of their one-to-ones reviewing pipeline, leaving little time for coaching on active deals.”

Weak example: “Reps need training on discovery.” Or “We need coaching training for managers.”

6. Linked OKR / business goal

If a request doesn’t connect to a measurable business goal, it’s a red flag. 

Enablement exists to move outcomes that matter to the company – things like revenue growth, customer retention, market expansion, or productivity gains.

When a request aligns to one of these, it stops being an isolated activity and becomes part of a bigger strategic narrative.

Asking for that connection early encourages strategic thinking. It also makes prioritisation easier later: when multiple requests compete for attention, the ones tied to company OKRs stand out clearly.

For some, it may feel like adding bureaucracy, but I disagree. It’s paramount that enablement’s energy goes where the business needs it most, especially given that most enablement teams are stretched thin. 

And if the requester struggles to identify that link, it’s often a signal that the problem isn’t ready for enablement yet.

Good example: “Supports company yearly OKR: improve customer retention by 10%. Stronger onboarding for AEs will reduce handover issues and help customers realise value faster.”

Weak example: “Our OKRs? Erm… vibes. Good vibes… and something something sales process…”

7. Business impact / risk of not acting

Once the problem and goal are clear, the next question is about the consequences of not acting on it.

This field helps surface the why now. It asks the requester to explain what changes for the business if the issue is solved – or what’s at risk if it isn’t.

It’s not about repeating the OKR or restating the problem, but about showing scale and urgency.

The impact might involve lost revenue, customer churn, significant operational inefficiency impacting profitability, or rising risk in specific areas of the business. 

Thinking through both sides – impact and risk – helps everyone gauge priority more clearly.

Good example: “Delays in proposal turnaround are causing 15% of verbal commitments to stall. Streamlining this could recover an estimated €1.5M in annual revenue.”

Weak example: “It’s important we fix this soon.”

8. Required outputs (with standard)

If outcomes describe the destination, outputs mark the milestones along the way.

An output is a tangible, observable result of work – something that can be reviewed, measured, or tested for quality. It’s not simply “what people do,” but what they produce as a result of what they do.

In the context of enablement, outputs can include things like completed discovery summaries, accurate proposals, or structured account plans. They bridge the gap between activity and results – showing whether performance is heading in the right direction.

When filling in this field, the requester should describe the key deliverables expected from the target audience, along with the standard of quality that defines a “good” version of each.

For example, a “proposal submitted” is an output; a “proposal that clearly addresses three prospect priorities and includes relevant case studies” defines the standard.

This distinction is part of a broader chain linking outcomes → outputs → behaviours, which I explored in this brief article. 

That framework helps ensure enablement focuses not only on activity but on the quality of what’s produced – the clearest indicator of progress toward business results.

Good example: “AEs create business cases that follow the defined template, include verified customer data such as baseline metrics and agreed success criteria, quantify ROI, and are validated by the champion before presentation.”

Weak example: “Reps should build stronger business cases.”

9. Critical behaviours

Once the required outputs are clear, the next step is to define the behaviours that will make them possible.

A behaviour is an observable action – what people actually say or do in their work.

It’s different from an outcome (the end result) and from an output (the deliverable). Behaviours are the building blocks that lead to both.

In an enablement context, this means identifying the few critical behaviours that, if consistently performed, would lead to stronger outputs and, ultimately, better outcomes.

These should be specific enough to be coached and observed, not vague aspirations like “be more consultative” or “ask better questions.”

For example, if the desired output is a validated business case, the supporting behaviours might include:

• Asking the prospect about current KPIs or metrics that matter, and capturing their baseline values,
• Verifying key assumptions and financial impact with the champion before drafting the case, and
• Reviewing the ROI calculation and proposed value story with the manager before presentation.

Focusing on just a handful of pivotal behaviours prevents overload and directs enablement towards the moments that truly move performance forward.

Good example: “AEs confirm financial impact figures with the prospect during discovery and validate assumptions with the champion before presenting the business case.”

Weak example: “Reps should be more value-driven.”

It’s worth noting that many requesters struggle to define outputs and behaviours clearly – and that’s perfectly normal. These concepts are not always intuitive, and identifying them often takes practice.

That’s why the intake form should explain what outputs and behaviours mean and reassure people that their answers don’t need to be perfect. Even a rough first attempt helps surface valuable context and sparks better conversations later with the enablement team.

10. Key obstacles (quick checklist)

Once the desired behaviours are clear, it’s time to ask why they aren’t happening today.

This step helps uncover what’s really standing in the way of performance – because not every gap is a training gap.

Often, the issue lies in missing information, clunky processes, misaligned incentives, or a lack of clarity rather than a lack of skill.

A simple checklist works best here. It gives requesters a structured way to reflect on possible barriers without needing to diagnose them perfectly.

For instance, they can select one or more of the following categories:

• Information & clarity – people don’t know what to do or why it matters.
• Tools, process & resources – workflows, content, or systems make it hard to perform the task effectively.
• Incentives & ownership – desired performance isn’t reinforced or rewarded; priorities compete.
• Knowledge & skills – capability gaps or limited experience.
• Capacity & context – time pressure, competing tasks, or cognitive overload.

By framing the question this way, requesters are nudged to think deeper – beyond “we need training” – and give enablement richer insight into what might really need fixing.

Good example: “Potential primary root cause: tools and process. The current proposal workflow is fragmented across three systems, and this tends to cause confusion and inefficiencies.” 

Weak example: “Reps fail to follow sales strategy.”

11. Supporting evidence & baseline

This field is where requesters share some of the signals that show a real performance gap exists, rather than just being a hunch.

That evidence might come from CRM data, call reviews, win/loss analysis, surveys, or even repeated field feedback.

You don’t need to demand a perfect dataset, but ideally, you’d want some tangible context.

When people back their requests with even light evidence – a few examples, trends, or anecdotes – it helps the enablement team validate the problem faster and make smarter prioritisation calls.

If quantitative data isn’t available, qualitative observations still matter. The key is to describe what you’re seeing and how often it happens.

And where baseline data exists (for example, current conversion rates, proposal turnaround time, time in stage, etc.), it should be included as it gives enablement a reference point for measuring future improvement.

Good example: “Win–loss analysis shows 45% of lost deals cite ‘poor discovery.’ Call reviews confirm reps often pitch before understanding needs.”

Weak example: “I just feel like discovery could be better.”

To keep it practical, the form can also include a small prompt: ‘If you don’t have hard data, share 2–3 examples that illustrate the issue.’

This keeps the process inclusive without losing rigour.

12. Timeline & reason

This final field helps requesters explain when the support is needed – and what business context drives that timing.

The goal isn’t to restate urgency (that’s already captured in the “impact or risk” field) but to clarify dependencies and sequencing.

For example, is there a product launch on the horizon?

A sales kickoff planned?

Or perhaps a new motion, compensation model, or quarter-end target that this work needs to align with?

When timing is clear, enablement can plan realistically – avoiding rushed rollouts and ensuring initiatives land at the right moment for the field.

It also creates space for collaboration, so both sides can discuss trade-offs and agree what’s feasible.

Good example: “Rollout requested by end of Q2 to support the new enterprise sales motion. A pilot in May would allow us to collect feedback before the full launch.”

Weak example: “ASAP. Yesterday would’ve been ideal.”

A small note in the form can remind requesters that timelines will always be reviewed collaboratively. The aim is to plan together, not to promise delivery on submission.

Bringing it all together

You may have noticed that the form is missing a “priority” dropdown or anything of that sort. 

That’s intentional. 

Every stakeholder believes their request is urgent. It’s enablement’s job – through governance, scoring, and context – to decide what truly rises to the top.

And yes, the form might feel a little “heavy.” That’s also by design.

It acts as a natural filter, protecting the team from low-effort, reactive requests and signalling that enablement’s time is valuable.

My view is that if someone isn’t willing to fill out twelve short fields thoughtfully, they’re unlikely to stay engaged through design, rollout, and reinforcement.

This small dose of friction is healthy; it invites reflection and filters noise before it ever reaches your queue.

By the time a request makes it through this process, you’ll already have what you need for a meaningful conversation: clear context, defined outcomes, and an engaged stakeholder ready to partner.

A well-designed intake form doesn’t slow the business down; it makes it sharper. It creates the shared discipline that helps enablement turn from a reactive support function into a focused driver of performance as you work your way up the enablement maturity ladder.

If you want to put these ideas into practice, you may want to check out my sales enablement intake form template which reflects exactly the structure outlined above. 

Scoring and prioritisation

Continuing from the earlier mention of prioritisation, it’s worth pausing on this topic. 

Once the intake process is established and requests start coming in, the next challenge is deciding which ones deserve attention first.

A clear scoring system helps bring structure and objectivity to that process so that enablement decisions aren’t driven by seniority, urgency, or the loudest voices, but by what will truly move the business forward.

The goal is to create transparency.

With shared scoring criteria, everyone understands how decisions are made and why certain requests take priority. 

Over time, this consistency builds trust, reduces friction, and reinforces enablement’s position as a strategic partner rather than a reactive service desk.

Before we explore the scoring models themselves, there’s a simpler step that comes first – checking whether a request is actually ready to be scored.

Preliminary evaluation gates 

Not every request that lands in the intake form is ready for scoring.

Some arrive incomplete – no clear audience, missing OKR alignment, or lacking a defined problem.

That’s where a few non-negotiable gates help.

These gates are simple readiness checks that filter out vague or under-defined requests before any scoring happens.

If a request doesn’t meet the basics, it can be returned for refinement with clear feedback. If it passes, it moves forward for full evaluation.

Typical readiness gates might include:

• Clear problem definition – the problem or expectation gap is well described.
• Defined audience – the who is specified (e.g., roles, regions, team size).
• Business alignment – the request links to a company OKR or key goal.
• Evidence or examples – there’s at least some proof or pattern behind the issue.
• Executive visibility – ideally, the request has at least leadership awareness; it doesn’t need full sponsorship yet, but it shouldn’t be completely off leadership’s radar.

These gates protect focus and maintain quality, making sure that enablement time is spent evaluating meaningful, mature requests rather than unfiltered ideas.

In most cases, once a request passes this initial screen, it’s followed by a short intake conversation between enablement and the requester.

This step helps engage in a meaningful dialogue, confirm the details, clarify any gaps, and align expectations before prioritisation begins.

Once clarity and alignment are in place, the request is ready to be scored using one of the models I’ll outline below.

Scoring models

Once a request passes the readiness gates, the next step is to score it.

Scoring gives structure to what would otherwise be subjective decisions. It allows you to weigh requests consistently against the same factors, rather than intuition or stakeholder influence.

The model you use matters less than the discipline of applying it.

What matters is that every request is judged through the same lens – using shared, transparent criteria.

Below are three scoring approaches you can adopt depending on your team’s maturity, volume of requests, and need for precision. 

1. The RICE framework 

Originally developed by Sean McBride – a former product manager at the software company Intercom – for prioritisation of product initatives, the RICE prioritisation framework is one of the simplest and most practical ways to score enablement requests.

–

It gives you a numeric way to compare initiatives by weighing their reach, expected impact, level of confidence, and required effort.

If we look at the model in relation to the intake form key components, here’s how each factor maps directly to them: 

Now, I’d like to bring the model to life with two realistic enablement examples, but before I do so, it’s important to first agree on a shared scoring language – a simple scale that keeps evaluations objective and comparable.

With this in mind, let’s now delve into two realistic enablement request examples: 

1. Improve manager deal coaching through a new coaching framework and enablement guide.
2. Launch a discovery certification to strengthen early-stage conversations across all Account Executives.

Both sound strategic. Both promise to improve performance.

At first glance, it may be hard to tell which one should come first.

But once you apply the RICE model, their differences – in reach, impact, confidence, and effort – become much clearer.

As we see from the example evaluation above, both initiatives would add clear value, but RICE helps surface which one should come first.

The Discovery Certification stands out for three reasons:

It reaches a larger share of the commercial organisation directly.

It tackles a problem tied to measurable, company-level outcomes (win rate and pipeline health).

It’s supported by stronger evidence, which increases confidence that it will deliver real impact.

Meanwhile, the Manager Coaching Framework remains highly strategic – but perhaps better positioned as the next priority, once foundational discovery consistency has improved.

The RICE model works best when you want consistency and simplicity. It’s easy to apply, quick to explain, and scales well as the intake volume grows.

2. The WSJF (Weighted Shortest Job First) model

The WSJF model, borrowed from agile frameworks like SAFe, adds a time dimension to prioritisation.

It balances the cost of delay against the effort required to deliver an initiative.

It’s especially useful when you’re flooded with “urgent” requests – helping you identify which initiatives truly lose value if delayed.

Formula:

WSJF = Cost of Delay ÷ Job Size

Here’s how each part of the models connects neatly to some of the intake form elements:

Let’s now provide a very brief application example of the WSJF model. 

Imagine two enablement initiatives landing on your desk at once:

• A short enablement update required ahead of an upcoming product launch.
• A full onboarding redesign aimed at improving ramp time for new hires.

The onboarding redesign clearly has a bigger potential impact.

But the product launch enablement carries a much higher cost of delay; if it’s not delivered now, sellers will miss a critical window, leading to lost opportunities and confusion in the field.

Meanwhile, the onboarding overhaul, though valuable, has a large job size: it requires cross-functional input, content rebuilds, pilot runs, and manager alignment.

In WSJF terms, that means the smaller, time-sensitive enablement update takes priority, while the onboarding redesign becomes a planned, high-impact project for later in the quarter.

WSJF helps sequence work intelligently – focusing not just on what’s important, but also on what’s timely, achievable, and contextually urgent.

It’s a practical model for enablement teams balancing multiple strategic priorities with limited bandwidth.

Cross-functional intake review 

Once the requests are scored, the next step is to bring them into a shared review – what I call the cross-functional intake review.

This is where prioritisation becomes a team sport.

Enablement may drive the process, but the decisions should be made with the key stakeholders of the units that will be most involved and affected by the potential initiatives – e.g., Sales leadership, RevOps, Marketing, Product. 

The aim of the reviews is to validate assumptions, align priorities, and agree on what moves first – with the objective scoring results as key background information to support the final decision. 

You might find that an initiative that scored high on impact clashes with a product launch or another change already planned for the same audience.

Or that two regions have similar requests that could be merged into one stronger initiative.

In practice, this meeting often confirms three things:

• Which initiatives will move forward this cycle, and which will be deferred.
• Who will sponsor and co-own each approved project.
• How decisions will be communicated back to the business.

If you handle it well, this process develops increasing trust and stronger buy-in as internal stakeholders see how decisions are made, understand the trade-offs, and leave knowing their voice was part of the process.

Connecting the enablement intake process to the enablement charter 

As I was writing this piece, one thing that became increasingly important for me was to clarify the interplay between the enablement intake process and the enablement charter – especially for teams operating at a more mature level of sales enablement strategy.

If you’ve already developed an enablement charter, you might wonder: how does the intake form fit into all this?

After all, the charter defines your key priorities, enablement success metrics, and long-term roadmap.

So, how would it work when you also have a parallel process inviting new requests?

The truth is that both serve different but complementary purposes.

Your enablement charter sets the direction. It outlines the sales enablement strategy that anchors enablement to the company’s business objectives, describing what matters most over a six- or twelve-month horizon (in some cases even more). It focuses the team’s time, resource allocation, and leadership energy on a defined set of core sales enablement initiatives.

The intake process, on the other hand, provides adaptability. It’s the mechanism that captures new needs and opportunities as they emerge throughout the year – from changing market conditions, product launches, leadership shifts, or feedback from the field.

In other words:

• The charter defines the path forward.
• The intake process helps you adjust your footing as the ground shifts.

In practice, these two systems work best when they inform one another.

You’ll typically want to build a resource buffer into your charter – allocating a percentage of enablement capacity (often 10–20%) for ad-hoc or unplanned initiatives that may arise through intake.

This helps you be responsive and adaptable without derailing the strategic initiatives.

At the same time, some of the sales enablement efforts that surface through intake will prove so impactful or strategically relevant that they earn a place in your next charter refresh – which might happen annually in larger organisations, or every six months in smaller, faster-moving ones.

This interplay also connects directly to your Executive Advisory Board – the senior group that may oversee strategic enablement governance. 

While the intake review focuses on operational prioritisation, the advisory board keeps an eye on the bigger picture – ensuring new initiatives don’t dilute the strategic focus and helping decide when certain intake-driven projects should formally become part of the charter itself.

Handled this way, the two systems create balance, making enablement both structured enough to stay focused and flexible enough to stay relevant.

Embedding intake into daily operations (and avoiding common pitfalls)

An intake process only works if it becomes part of the daily rhythm of the business. It can’t live in a slide deck or a one-time announcement; it has to be how work gets channelled, every time. 

That means sales enablement leaders (and leadership in general) modelling the behaviour, stakeholders respecting the workflow, and the enablement team reinforcing it through communication and reporting.

Think of it less as a form or even a set of sales enablement practices, and more as an operating system. When the system runs smoothly, everyone knows where to go with requests, how decisions get made, and why some projects move forward while others wait. 

When and if it breaks, enablement risks slipping back into firefighting mode – scattered, reactive, and difficult to measure.

For intake to stick, here’s what to do – and what happens when you don’t.

1. Make the process non-negotiable

What to do: 

Insist that every initiative, no matter how urgent or who’s asking, goes through intake. Model this discipline at the leadership level so everyone sees it’s the norm, not optional. This creates fairness and builds trust in the system.

What tends to happen if you don’t: 

The first few times a senior leader or other stakeholder bypasses intake, the precedent is set. Soon, others may follow suit, and you’re buried under random Slack pings and side-door requests. Intake loses legitimacy, and you’re back to firefighting.

2. Define ownership and cadence

What to do: 

Put someone visibly in charge of managing the intake process.

In smaller teams, this might be the Head of Enablement reviewing new requests every week to keep momentum and make quick decisions. In larger organisations, an intake committee with clear roles works best – meeting weekly/fortnightly to keep request flowing and quarterly to review the broader pipeline and align priorities with relevant leadership.

Consistency matters, but so does speed. If the process feels slow or opaque, teams will lose patience and find shortcuts around it. Aim for an agile tempo – fast enough to show responsiveness, structured enough to protect focus.

What tends to happen if you don’t: 

Without visible ownership, requests disappear into a black hole. Stakeholders may assume nothing is happening, frustration builds, and soon they revert to informal channels – Slack messages, side conversations, direct asks to leadership. 

Without a clear cadence, the backlog stalls, trust erodes, and enablement ends up firefighting again instead of driving meaningful priorities.

3. Reinforce through reporting

What to do: 

Share regular updates. A lightweight dashboard or monthly email showing requests in backlog, active projects, and completed work builds transparency. It shows stakeholders that intake decisions are real and fair.

What tends to happen if you don’t: 

Silence breeds distrust. When stakeholders never hear back, they assume their requests are being ignored or deprioritised unfairly. That frustration drives them to escalate to leadership or pull in resources directly – undermining enablement’s role as a gatekeeper of focus.

4. Balance strategic bets with quick wins

What to do: 

Use intake to maintain a portfolio view. Blend long-term, high-impact programmes (e.g., manager enablement, new methodologies) with smaller, fast-turnaround requests that show reps and managers you’re responsive. This balance proves you’re both strategic and tactical.

What tends to happen if you don’t: 

On one hand, giving too much importance to big bets makes the team look disconnected – sales team members feel their day-to-day pain points are ignored. On the other hand, overemphasising small fixes makes enablement look too tactical and reactive, delivering lots of activity but little business impact. Either imbalance can erode trust and credibility.

Intake isn’t a one-time project; it’s an ongoing discipline. The more consistently you enforce it while following through with the right requests, the more trust and respect it earns. 

The more you let it slide, the faster it unravels.

Conclusion

A well-built intake process is one of the most effective and cost-effective ways for enablement to move from being a “yes department” into a strategic partner that invests resources where they will affect sales success the most. It is also among the best ways to complement your stakeholder management skills with a structured process.

It protects the team’s time, forces stakeholders to think critically about their requests, and creates a transparent framework for prioritisation. 

It’s how you build credibility: not by doing everything, but by doing the right things.

As you consider your own setup, ask yourself:

• Do all stakeholders – including executives – use the same path for requests?
• Are initiatives consistently scored against business goals alignment and other important criteria rather than personalities or politics?
• Can any stakeholder see the status of their request at a glance?
• Is the process simple enough to use today, but flexible enough to evolve as the team grows?

If you can answer most of these questions with a yes or a getting there, you are on the right path. If you can’t, I hope this article has convinced you of the importance of the intake process.

If you have any questions or doubts, feel free to direct them my way via the contact form or my LinkedIn profile. I am always here to support.