Internal request catalog spec for categories, forms, routing

Why ad-hoc asks create chaos

Ad-hoc requests usually look harmless: a DM that says “can you quickly add a field?”, an email thread with five people CC’d, a hallway question, or a comment dropped into a group chat. Each one feels faster than “filling out a form”, so the habit sticks.

The trouble shows up after the ask. Work gets lost when the person who saw the message goes offline, switches teams, or simply forgets. Priority turns into negotiation because there’s no shared view of what’s already in progress. Different people ask for the same thing in different places, so you either duplicate work or answer the same questions again and again. And when responses are slow, it’s rarely because the team doesn’t care. It’s because the request is missing key details and becomes a long back-and-forth.

Everyone feels the pain, just in different ways. Requesters don’t know if anyone saw it, when it’ll happen, or what “done” means. Approvers get pulled into vague decisions without context, deadlines, or impact. Operators and builders juggle interruptions and end up reacting to the loudest voice. Managers can’t see workload, trends, or where time is actually going.

“Trackable work” is the opposite of that chaos. It means every ask lives in one place (for example, an internal request catalog), has a clear owner, a current status, and a visible history of decisions and updates. It also means requests are comparable: you can sort them, prioritize them, and close them with a record of what changed. When work is trackable, fewer requests get stuck, and fewer people feel like they have to chase answers.

Goals, scope, and success metrics

The first version of your internal request catalog should do one thing well: turn “can you quickly…” into work that has an owner, a clear next step, and a visible status. Keep the goals simple so the rollout is easy to explain and easy to measure.

Start by naming which teams are included on day one. A tight launch group reduces confusion and helps you fix rough edges fast. For example, you might include IT (access, devices, accounts), Operations (facilities, vendors, process fixes), Finance (purchase requests, invoices), People Ops (onboarding, policy questions), and Customer Support Ops (tools, macros, reporting).

Be explicit about scope. The catalog works best for small-to-medium requests with a clear outcome. Treat larger efforts differently so the catalog doesn’t quietly become a project tracker.

Examples that fit well include: “Create a new Slack channel,” “Set up a laptop,” “Add a field to a form,” “Reset access,” or “Order a software license.” Examples that don’t fit: multi-week initiatives, cross-team projects, roadmap work, and anything that needs discovery before you can define what “done” means.

Pick success metrics you can check every week, not once a quarter. Good starting points are median time to first response, the percent of requests assigned an owner within 1 business day, reopen rate (how often work comes back), the percent completed within the promised timeframe, and requester satisfaction (a simple 1-5 rating).

Agree on service hours and what “urgent” means. Write it down in one sentence, such as: “Urgent means business is blocked and no workaround exists.” If urgent work is allowed, specify who can mark it urgent and the response expectation during service hours.

Request categories that people can recognize

A request catalog only works if people can choose a category in seconds. Keep the first version small. Six to twelve categories is usually enough. If you need more, it often means the labels are too technical or you’re mixing very different workflows.

Use requester language, not internal team language. “New laptop” beats “Endpoint procurement.” “Access to Salesforce” beats “CRM permissioning.” If someone has to translate in their head, they’ll pick the wrong thing or bypass the internal request catalog.

For every category, write a simple definition: one or two sentences plus a few common examples. This isn’t documentation for experts. It’s a guardrail for busy people. For example, “Account access” can cover new access, role changes, and removals. “Hardware” can cover a new laptop, a replacement, and accessories.

Here are five example categories written the way requesters speak:

• Access and permissions (apps, shared drives, groups)
• Hardware (new laptop, replacement, peripherals)
• Software and licenses (new tool, seat change, renewal)
• Reporting and data (new report, dashboard changes, data fix)
• People ops requests (onboarding, offboarding, policy questions)

Always include a “Not sure” category. Make its behavior predictable: route it to a triage queue (often IT helpdesk or an ops coordinator) with a short SLA, so uncertainty doesn’t become silence.

Split a category only when it changes how the work runs. Common triggers are different approvers, different information needed in the form, or meaningfully different response times. If the same team handles it with the same steps, keep it together for now and refine later based on real request volume and misroutes.

Intake form fields that capture the right details

A good request intake form design saves time for both sides. The goal isn’t to collect everything. It’s to collect the few details that stop the usual back-and-forth. If you run an internal request catalog, consistency matters more than perfection.

Start with a shared core that appears on every request, no matter the category. This makes reporting and triage easier, and it helps requesters learn the pattern:

• Requester name and contact (auto-filled if possible)
• Requesting team and affected team (if different)
• Desired due date (plus a “date is flexible” option)
• Business impact (small, medium, large) and who is blocked
• Short description of the request in plain language

Then add category-specific fields that capture the details you always end up asking for later. An access request usually needs the system name, the role or permission level, and the approving manager. A data request might need the report name, timeframe, and where the output should go.

Keep the form short by using conditional questions. Only show “Role needed” after someone picks a system. Only show “Production access” warnings when “Environment = Production” is selected. No-code tools like AppMaster can handle this kind of logic cleanly, so people only see what applies to them.

Be clear about what’s required vs optional. When required info is missing, don’t bounce the request without guidance. Set a rule instead: move it to a “Waiting on requester” status and ask one focused question that lists exactly what’s needed.

File uploads can help, but they also create risk. Set simple rules up front: allowed file types (for example PDF, PNG, CSV), a size limit, and what must be redacted (personal data, passwords, API keys). If a screenshot includes sensitive details, ask for a redacted version before work begins.

Approval rules without bottlenecks

Approvals should protect the business, not slow it down. The trick is predictability. People should know up front whether they can submit a request, who will approve it, and what happens next.

Define who can submit each request category. Some categories can be “anyone can submit” (like fixing a broken tool). Others should be limited to certain roles (like creating a new vendor) or managers only (like hiring or headcount changes). If you skip this, you get noisy requests and managers end up acting as human filters.

Simple approval map per category

For every category, list the minimum approvers needed and keep it consistent. Many teams use a small set of standard checks: the requester’s manager (priority and staffing), a budget owner (spend and renewals), security (new tools, integrations, access changes), a data owner (new reports, data sharing, sensitive fields), and legal or compliance only when required.

Use auto-approval thresholds for low-risk, low-cost work. For example, “software under $100/month with no customer data” can auto-approve, while anything touching production systems or PII always routes to security and the data owner.

Exceptions, escalation, and absence rules

Write down how exceptions work so people don’t argue in comments. If a requester says “urgent,” require a reason (customer impact, outage, deadline) and route to an on-call approver or a named escalation path.

Plan for approvers being out. Pick one approach and stick to it: a delegate, a timeout (for example, 24 hours, then auto-route), or a fallback approver (like the manager’s manager). In tools built with platforms like AppMaster, you can implement these as clear business rules so approvals don’t depend on someone remembering the process.

Routing and triage rules that keep work moving

Routing is where an internal request catalog stops being a list and becomes a system. The goal is simple: the right person sees the request quickly, with a clear next step.

Choose one assignment method per category. Some categories work best as a team queue (anyone can pick it up). Others need round-robin to spread load. A few should always go to a specific owner, like payroll changes or security access.

Triage needs a safe path for messy input. Keep the “Not sure” category, and add a rule: a coordinator reviews it within a short window, then re-files it without sending the requester back to square one. Do the same for misfiled requests. The assignee moves it to the correct category and leaves a short note explaining what changed.

Define priority in plain language so people can predict outcomes. A practical model uses impact (how many people affected), time sensitivity (deadlines), and visibility (customer-facing vs internal). Avoid letting “urgent” be a free-text field with no rules.

Set targets that match reality. A small set is enough: first response time (for example, same day for access requests), expected completion windows by category (for example, 2-3 business days), an escalation trigger (for example, no update after 48 hours), ownership on handoffs (who updates the requester), and a definition of “done” (what must be delivered).

Add rules for duplicates, dependencies, and blocked work. If a request matches an existing one, merge it and notify the requester. If it depends on another team, mark it “Blocked,” name the dependency, and set a reminder to re-check. Tools like AppMaster can model these request routing rules and statuses with visual logic so the rules stay consistent as categories grow.

Status transparency: what requesters see and when

If people can’t see what’s happening, they’ll ask again in chat, DM the team, or create duplicates. Service request status transparency turns your internal request catalog into a shared source of truth instead of a black box.

Start with a small set of statuses that match how work really moves. Fewer options means fewer arguments and more consistent updates.

A status set that stays honest

Keep the workflow simple, and define what must be true to enter and leave each status:

• New: request is submitted and hasn’t been reviewed yet. Exit when a triager checks it for completeness and category.
• Triage: scope, priority, and owner are confirmed, and the team may ask one focused question. Exit when an owner is assigned and the next action is clear.
• Waiting on requester: the team can’t proceed without a missing detail, asset, or decision. Exit when the requester provides what was asked for (or the request is closed as unresponsive).
• In progress: work has started and is actively moving. Exit when the deliverable is ready for review or release.
• Done: delivered and confirmed, or clearly closed with a reason (for example, out of scope).

Once statuses are defined, decide what requesters can always see. A practical minimum is: current status, owner, next action, last updated time, and key timestamps (submitted, started, completed). “Next action” matters more than long comments because it answers the real question: what happens next, and who’s waiting on whom?

Notifications and ETA without overpromising

Use notifications to reduce chasing, not to spam people. A simple set works well: a confirmation on submit (including the next expected step), an alert on status change (with the reason in one sentence), an alert when someone comments or asks a question, and a closure message on Done (including what was delivered and how to verify).

For timing, avoid exact dates unless you can truly commit. Show a target window instead, like “initial response within 1 business day” and “delivery typically 3 to 5 business days after triage.”

Example: an onboarding access request moves to Waiting on requester because the manager didn’t list the needed tools. The requester sees “Next action: provide tool list” plus a target window that starts only after they reply. This prevents silent delays and keeps expectations fair.

If you build your catalog in a tool like AppMaster, you can surface these fields on a simple requester portal and trigger notifications from status changes, so updates happen consistently without extra manual work.

Step-by-step: write the spec and launch a first version

Ground the catalog in real work, not opinions. Pull the last 30 to 90 days of requests from chat, email, tickets, and meeting notes. Look for repeats: the same ask showing up with different words.

Turn those repeats into a small set of work request categories with plain definitions. Keep the names human (for example, “Access request” vs “IAM entitlement”). Before you publish anything, read the category list to 5 to 10 frequent requesters and ask one question: “Where would you file your last request?” Then fix the confusing labels.

Build one short base form that works for every request, then add only two or three category-specific forms for your highest-volume items. A solid first version looks like this:

1. Collect evidence: group common asks and note what details were usually missing.
2. Draft 6 to 10 categories with one-sentence definitions and a few examples.
3. Create a base intake form (requester, due date, business impact, attachments) plus a few add-ons (for onboarding: start date, role, systems needed).
4. Put routing, approvals, and status rules on a single page so anyone can understand them.
5. Pilot with one team, review results weekly, then expand.

For the one-page rules, focus on “who owns this next” and “what does done mean.” Use the same status set everywhere (New, Triage, In progress, Waiting on requester, Done) and define what triggers each.

If you use a tool like AppMaster to build the workflow, keep the first release boring on purpose: one clean form, clear statuses, and automatic routing. Add complexity only after the pilot shows what’s actually missing.

Example scenario: onboarding requests without back-and-forth

A sales manager, Priya, is hiring Jordan. On Monday morning she needs two things: access to the CRM and a laptop. Instead of messaging three different people, she opens the internal request catalog and starts two requests.

First she picks Category: “New hire access”. The intake form is short, but specific: new hire name, start date, team, manager (auto-filled from Priya’s profile), which systems are needed (CRM, email, chat), and whether the hire is remote. It also asks, “What is the business reason?” with a one-line example so people don’t overthink it.

Then she creates a second request under Category: “Hardware and equipment”. That form asks for laptop model preference (or “standard”), shipping address, cost center, and whether a monitor or headset is needed.

Approvals happen quietly in the background. The access request only needs manager confirmation, so it auto-approves because Priya is the manager on record. The laptop request checks the estimated cost. If it’s above the team’s allowance, it automatically adds a budget owner approval. If not, it goes straight to IT procurement.

Priya can follow both requests without pinging anyone:

• Submitted: request created, owner assigned
• Triage: category and details confirmed
• Waiting on requester: a single question is posted (for example, “Shipping address missing”)
• In progress: work started, next milestone shown
• Done: access granted and asset delivered

If Priya accidentally files the laptop under “New hire access,” triage fixes it by changing the category and re-routing to procurement. The request keeps the same ID, comments, and attachments, so nothing gets lost.

If you build this catalog as a simple internal portal (for example, with AppMaster), the same spec can drive clean forms, routing rules, and a status page that reduces follow-ups.

Common mistakes and how to avoid them

An internal request catalog only works if people trust it. Most failures aren’t “tool” problems. They’re design choices that make the process feel harder than sending a message.

Mistake patterns that create chaos

Here are issues that show up again and again, and how to fix them:

• Too many categories. If someone has to guess between 12 similar options, they’ll pick the wrong one or avoid the catalog. Start with 5-8 plain-language categories. Add more only when a pattern is proven.
• Forms that ask for everything up front. Long forms scare people away and still miss key details. Keep the first screen short, then use conditional questions (only ask “Which system?” after they choose “Access”).
• Routing to a person, not a role. If all “Access” requests go to Jordan, work stops when Jordan is out. Route to a queue or team first, then assign during triage.
• Statuses that don’t match reality. “In progress” is useless if the work is actually waiting for approval, input, or a vendor. Use real waiting states so people understand why nothing is happening.
• No clear definition of urgent. If “urgent” has no rules, everything becomes urgent. Define it with examples and impact (security risk, revenue loss, many users blocked), and require a deadline plus a business reason.

A quick reality check: if requesters keep sending follow-up messages, it usually means your statuses are vague or your intake form didn’t capture the one detail needed to move forward.

If you build your internal request catalog in a no-code tool like AppMaster, the same rules apply: keep categories familiar, make forms adaptive, and model statuses that reflect real waiting points.

Quick checklist and practical next steps

Before you publish an internal request catalog, do a final pass for clarity and consistency. Teams rarely fail because the tool is missing features. They fail because the rules are fuzzy, categories overlap, and requesters can’t predict what will happen next.

Launch checklist (what to validate in 30 minutes)

Run through this checklist with 2 to 3 real requesters and one person from each delivery team:

• Keep categories few and easy to tell apart. If someone can’t pick a category in 10 seconds, merge or rename it.
• Define each category in one sentence and add one example request. Use the same words people already use in chat.
• Assign a clear owner and a backup for every category. Write one approval path that explains who can say yes and when.
• Make the form short by default. Start with a small set of required fields, then show extra questions only when they apply.
• Standardize statuses and what they mean. If “In progress” sometimes means “waiting for approval,” rename it or split it.

A simple test: take five recent ad-hoc asks from email or chat and see if they map cleanly to a category, a form, an owner, and a predictable status path.

Practical next steps (make it real)

Pick one high-volume area (for example, onboarding, access requests, or reports) and publish a first version within a week.

Draft a one-page spec (categories, required fields, request routing rules, approvals, and status definitions). Set response expectations: who acknowledges, by when, and what “done” looks like. Build the intake and workflow as one internal app so requests, routing, and statuses live in one place. Start with basic reporting: count requests by category, time to first response, and time to close.

If you expect to adjust forms and rules often, building the catalog in AppMaster (appmaster.io) can help because you can update the workflow logic and regenerate the application as requirements change, instead of waiting on a full engineering cycle.