What is an approval workflow?
An approval workflow is a set route a request follows until the people with authority have approved or rejected it. It replaces the chain of emails, calls and messages that most approvals rely on.
A well-designed workflow answers four questions for every request. Who decides? On what evidence? In what order? What happens if they say no?
Approval workflow software runs that design the same way every time and records each decision. The design itself is yours, and it is where most approval problems start.
What is an approval gate?
An approval gate is a point where the workflow stops until someone with the right authority makes a decision. Every gate needs five things defined in advance.
- The approver. A role with the authority to decide, taken from your delegation of authority.
- The evidence. What the approver must see: quotes, photos, a checklist or a report.
- The outcomes. Approve, reject and return to a named stage, or reject and close.
- The reason rule. A rejection without a reason cannot be fixed, so make the reason compulsory.
- The expected time. How long a request may wait at this gate before someone follows up.
How many approval levels does a workflow need?
Use as few levels as the risk allows. Each level should add a check that the levels before it cannot make.
Most organisations set levels by value or risk in a delegation of authority. The bands below are illustrative. Use your own limits.
| Request | Approvals needed |
|---|---|
| Up to R5,000 | Site or estate manager |
| R5,001 to R50,000 | Site manager, then operations manager |
| Above R50,000 | Site manager, operations manager, then financial director |
| Any value, safety-related | Add a health and safety review, in parallel with the first approver |
Watch for levels that never change anything. If the third approver has approved every request unchanged for a year, the level is adding delay, not control.
Should approvals be sequential or parallel?
Use sequential approvals for rising authority and parallel approvals for independent checks. Most real workflows use both.
| Aspect | Sequential | Parallel |
|---|---|---|
| How it runs | One approver at a time, in a fixed order | Several approvers at once; the workflow waits for all of them |
| Best for | Rising levels of authority, such as value limits | Independent checks, such as safety and budget |
| Speed | Slower: each approver waits for the one before | Faster: reviews overlap |
| Main risk | One absent approver holds up everyone after them | Approvers may assume someone else checked the detail |
| Design tip | Put the approver most likely to reject first | Give each approver a different, named check |
How do you design an approval workflow step by step?
Design on paper first, with the people who approve today. Then build it.
- Write down what is being approved. One request type per workflow: a purchase, a new contractor, a closed investigation.
- List the checks the request needs. Budget, technical fit, safety, contract terms. Each check becomes a gate or part of one.
- Assign each check to a role. Use your delegation of authority. Name roles, not people, so the workflow survives staff changes.
- Decide the order. Run independent checks in parallel. Put rising authority in sequence.
- Set the evidence for each gate. Quotes, photos, documents or a completed checklist. An approver should never have to ask for basics.
- Define every outcome. Approve, reject and return to a named stage, or reject and close. Require a reason for each rejection.
- Plan for absence. Agree who decides when an approver is away, and how long a request may wait before someone follows up.
- Test it with real requests. Run a few past requests through the design and see where they would have stalled.
Here is how that design runs for a fictional estate, Acacia Ridge, replacing a gate motor. The values are illustrative.
- The estate's maintenance supervisor raises a request to replace the main boom gate motor. It includes two quotes of about R40,000 and photos of the failed unit.
- The value puts the request in the R5,001 to R50,000 band, so the workflow branches to two levels: the estate manager, then the operations manager.
- The estate manager checks that both quotes cover the same specification and approves. In parallel, the security manager confirms the interim gate arrangements.
- Once both have signed off, the operations manager reviews the request and approves with a digital signature.
- Had the operations manager asked for a third quote, the request would return to the maintenance supervisor with that reason. The earlier checks would stand unless the specification changed.
- The installer's completion is captured with a photo and a signature, and the workflow closes.
If the approval sits inside a longer procedure, such as onboarding or an investigation, map the whole procedure first. Our guide to SOP automation shows how.
How should rejection and return work?
A rejection should send the request back to the stage that can fix it, with a reason. Sending everything back to the start wastes the work of every approver who said yes.
- Reject and return when the request can be fixed: a missing quote, an unclear scope, a wrong cost centre.
- Reject and close when the answer is no: the purchase is not needed, or the contractor is not acceptable.
- Repeat earlier approvals only when the fix changes what they relied on, such as a higher value or a different supplier.
Track how often each gate rejects, and why. A gate that keeps returning requests for the same missing document usually means the request form should ask for it.
How do you handle delegation and absent approvers?
Agree delegation before anyone goes on leave, not after a request has waited a week. The delegate should hold the same or higher authority.
- Set delegation for a fixed period, in writing, and record who approved under it.
- Never share logins. An approval made on someone else's account cannot be relied on later.
- Name a follow-up person for requests that wait longer than the gate's expected time.
- Keep the requester and the approver separate. Nobody should approve their own request.
What should an approval audit trail record?
For each decision, record who decided, what they decided, when, on which version of the request, and why. Keep the evidence they saw with the decision.
South African law generally recognises electronic approvals. Under the Electronic Communications and Transactions Act, an electronic signature is not without legal force merely because it is electronic (section 13(2)).
Where the parties require an electronic signature but have not agreed on a type, the method must identify the person and show their approval. It must also be as reliable as is appropriate for the purpose (section 13(3)).
Where a law itself requires a signature and does not specify the type, only an advanced electronic signature meets that requirement (section 13(1)). Some documents are excluded from these rules, such as agreements to sell land (section 4 and the Act's schedules).
If a record is ever disputed, its evidential weight depends on several factors (section 15(3)). These include how reliably it was created, stored and kept intact, and how its originator was identified. A time-stamped, user-linked audit trail speaks to each of these. This is a summary, not legal advice.
What are the most common approval workflow mistakes?
- Too many levels. Each extra approver adds waiting time and spreads responsibility thin.
- Approvers without evidence. If the approver must phone the requester for the quote, the form is incomplete.
- Approvals outside the system. A "yes" in a chat message leaves a gap in the record.
- Optional rejection reasons. The requester guesses, resubmits and gets rejected again.
- Parallel approvers with the same check. Two people reviewing the same thing each assume the other looked closely.
- Named people instead of roles. The workflow breaks the day someone resigns.
For how approvals fit into wider process automation, read workflow automation for business processes.
How does Worxit handle approval workflows?
In Worxit's Workflows module, approvals are built into reusable workflow templates with sequential stages.
- Each stage is routed automatically to the assigned role or user.
- Approval gates sit between stages and hold the workflow until it is approved.
- An approver can reject a stage and return the workflow to an earlier stage.
- Approvals and sign-offs can be captured as digital signatures.
- Conditional branching sends requests down different paths, and stages can run in parallel.
- Photos and documents can be attached at any stage, and every step is time-stamped.
- Analytics show completion times and where workflows are held up.
The dashboard licence is R600 per month, including one admin user. Additional dashboard users are R75 per user per month. Each phone, tablet or radio running the app needs a R350 monthly device licence. All prices exclude VAT.
Frequently asked questions
What is an approval workflow?
An approval workflow is the defined path a request follows until the right people have approved or rejected it. It sets who approves at each stage, what evidence they see, what happens on rejection and how each decision is recorded. Purchase requests, onboarding and incident sign-offs are common examples.
What is the difference between sequential and parallel approval?
In sequential approval, each approver decides in turn, and the next one only sees the request after the previous approval. In parallel approval, several approvers review at the same time, and the workflow moves on when all of them have approved. Parallel suits independent checks; sequential suits escalating authority.
How many levels should an approval workflow have?
As few as the risk allows. Each level should add a check the earlier levels cannot make, such as budget authority or a safety review. Many organisations tie levels to value bands in a delegation of authority. A level that always approves without changes is a sign it can be removed.
What should happen when an approver rejects a request?
The approver should give a reason and return the request to the stage that can fix it, not always to the start. If the fix changes something earlier approvers relied on, such as the value or scope, those approvals should be repeated. Otherwise, they can stand.
Are electronic approvals legally valid in South Africa?
Generally, yes. The Electronic Communications and Transactions Act says an electronic signature is not without legal force merely because it is electronic. Where a law requires a signature without naming the type, an advanced electronic signature is needed. Some documents, such as land sale agreements, are excluded. This is not legal advice.
Sources
- Electronic Communications and Transactions Act 25 of 2002. gov.za. Section 4 and Schedules 1 and 2 (exclusions), section 13 (electronic signatures) and section 15 (evidential weight of data messages).