Field note · Approvals
When one approval becomes a bottleneck.
Approvals exist for a reason. The problem is not that someone checks the work. It is when routine work repeatedly waits for one person even when the risk, value or exception does not justify the same level of attention every time.
Separate the control from the queue
Removing an approval just because it is slow can create a different problem. Before changing it, establish what the approval is meant to protect: money, quality, safety, customer commitment, policy, or something else.
Then look at the queue itself. A useful control can still be badly designed if every case follows the same route regardless of risk.
Find out what truly needs a decision
Many approval queues mix routine confirmations with genuine exceptions. The operating question is whether the approver is making a judgement each time or simply confirming that a known rule has been followed.
- What risk or decision is this approval meant to control?
- Which cases are routine, and which genuinely need judgement?
- What information does the approver need before deciding?
- Can authority be delegated within clear limits without weakening the control?
- Can anyone see what is waiting, for how long, and why?
The answer may be a rule, not automation
A threshold, delegation rule, clearer exception path or better queue visibility may solve more than automating the existing approval. In other cases, a workflow tool can make a sound control easier to operate.
The distinction matters. Automating a poorly defined approval can make the queue faster without making the decision better.