Define what approval authorises
An approval may permit a purchase, release a document or move work to another stage. State the decision and the information required to make it. Separate an acknowledgement from an authorisation. If different amounts or categories require different reviewers, document those rules and identify who is allowed to change them.
Make states and transitions explicit
List states such as draft, submitted, returned, approved and cancelled, then define who can move an item between them. Consider whether an approved item may be edited and what triggers a fresh review. A system that only has an “approve” button can conceal important questions about revisions, withdrawal and accountability.
Handle absence and disagreement
Decide how delegation, overdue requests and conflicting decisions are managed. Avoid granting a replacement reviewer unrestricted permissions simply to keep a queue moving. Give the requester clear feedback when information is missing. Escalation rules should reflect the business’s actual authority structure rather than a convenient default in the software.
Keep an understandable decision record
Record the relevant actor, time, state change and reason where appropriate. Protect access to the history and agree retention requirements. Test a returned request, a delegated approval and an edit after submission. Review whether the record lets an authorised person explain what happened without reconstructing a chain of private messages.
Your practical checklist
- Define the decision and required evidence
- Model states and permitted transitions
- Agree delegation and escalation rules
- Test the decision history and exception paths
Working through a similar question?
We’re happy to help you find a practical starting point.
Talk to AMGK