Approval workflow requirements should specify who decides, what information they decide on, and what happens when the normal sequence cannot continue. A diagram that only says “submit, approve, complete” leaves too many decisions for implementation.
Use the following approach when replacing email-based approvals or extending an existing business application. It helps operations and engineering teams agree the rules before estimating the software.
Build a decision matrix
Start with the decisions people already make. Record the rule, its owner, and an example that demonstrates its boundary. Do not invent thresholds during a technical scoping meeting: the responsible business team must supply them.
| Requirement | Question for the process owner | Acceptance example |
|---|---|---|
| Routing | Which attributes select the approver? | Requests on either side of a threshold reach the expected people |
| Multiple approvals | Are decisions sequential, parallel, or conditional? | A rejected required approval prevents completion |
| Delegation | Who may substitute for an absent approver? | The substitute acts only within their assigned scope |
| Changed requests | Which edits invalidate earlier approval? | A material edit returns the request to the agreed step |
| Waiting time | When should work be escalated, and to whom? | An overdue request becomes visible to its owner |
| Cancellation | At what stage can the requester withdraw? | A cancellation does not silently undo an action already executed |
This matrix is a starting structure, not a universal policy. Different departments may need different rules even when they use the same software.
Decide what happens when the rules cannot be applied
Separate a business exception from a technical failure. A missing authorized approver needs a business decision. A temporarily unavailable connected system needs a recovery procedure. Sending both into an unnamed “error” queue makes ownership unclear.
For each exception, specify the person or team that sees it, the information available, the permitted actions, and the way the request returns to normal processing. Decide whether work can continue manually and how that manual decision is reflected in the system.
Test decisions against the current version of the request
Hypothetical example: a manager approves a purchase request, then the requester increases the quantity before an order is created. The specification must say whether the existing approval still applies. The software should not make that business policy up.
Also consider two people deciding at nearly the same time, a request being cancelled during approval, and an approver changing department. These examples make hidden assumptions visible before implementation.
Define the operational record
Agree which changes should be recorded: the request version, actor, decision, reason, and subsequent state. Specify who can view that history and how corrections are represented. A history view should help the responsible team explain a decision; it is not by itself a compliance guarantee.
Measure the current process before setting improvement targets. Record waiting time separately from time spent actively handling a request. Automation may remove repeated entry while leaving a decision bottleneck unchanged.
Prepare the first release
Choose one request type, one agreed decision matrix, and a bounded group of users. Include exception handling and the manual fallback in the first-release scope. Save additional request types for later when the shared rules and differences are understood.
If an existing product may already support the process, use the build-versus-buy guide before commissioning custom development. Bring the completed matrix to a discussion about workflow automation development.
Put it into practice.
Explore our workflow automation development service or send us the problem you are working on.