Improving approvals and managing urgent requests

An urgent request is waiting for a review and operations may be delayed. How can you speed up the workflow while keeping the decision traceable?

Distinguish time spent checking, time waiting for the decision-maker and returns for missing documents. Removing a stage without understanding its purpose can remove a necessary safeguard.

Technical and budget reviews can proceed in parallel when the need and amount are sufficiently defined. Commitment authorisation follows their conclusions. Deputies authorised in advance can cover absences.

In the model presented here, an urgent request requires explicit approval before commitment, with a minimum file recording the need, reason, maximum amount, supplier, risk and financing. Essential beneficiary checks and bank signing requirements still apply.

Mistakes to avoid

Silence must not be treated as approval in this workflow. Completing documents after an authorised action does not turn an unauthorised commitment into a properly approved transaction. Repeated emergencies may indicate inadequate preparation.

Recommended actions

Keep both the initial receipt date and the date the file became complete. Measure waiting time by stage, clarify required documents and remove genuinely redundant reviews after analysing authority. Define reminders, deputies and escalation. Track authorised exceptions separately from unauthorised transactions, and investigate recurrence.

Are delays caused by the checks themselves or by a workflow that needs improvement?