There is a persistent tension in procurement approval between control and speed, and it is usually resolved wrongly. Adding approvers feels like adding control and mostly adds delay, and delay is what causes people to buy outside the process entirely. A workflow that is fast enough to be followed controls more spend than a thorough one that is routinely bypassed.
Fewer approvers, better placed
Each additional approval level adds elapsed time and dilutes responsibility, and two approvers each assuming the other looked properly is a well-documented failure. One approver with genuine authority and genuine accountability is usually stronger than three signing in sequence, and it is several days faster.
Cover and escalation as defaults
Automatic delegation during declared absence, and escalation to a named alternative after a set period. These two settings remove most of the long tail, and the long tail is what people remember when they decide whether the process is workable. Reminders that repeat to the same silent inbox achieve nothing but irritation.
Thresholds visible before submission
A requester who knows their request will need two signatures plans accordingly. One who discovers it afterwards experiences the process as arbitrary and starts splitting requests to stay under limits, which is exactly the behaviour thresholds exist to prevent. Publishing the rules costs nothing and prevents that adaptation.
Questions people ask about procurement approval workflow
How fast should approval be?
Faster than the workaround available to your staff. Measure the elapsed time distribution and look at the tail rather than the average.
Can approvals be automatic below a value?
Many organisations auto-approve small requests to keep the process usable, with periodic review of what passed through. It is a risk decision to make explicitly.
What if the approver disagrees with the request?
Rejection with a reason, promptly. Silence is what teaches people to stop asking and start buying another way.