How Automation Can Simplify Audit and Contract Approvals in Procurement

Our first attempt to speed up procurement approvals was not complicated. We created a spreadsheet to track requests, listed the people responsible for each approval, and added columns for audit and contract status. At the time, it seemed like a practical way to bring some order to a process that was largely managed through emails and shared folders.

The spreadsheet did give us some visibility, but it also made one thing clear. Tracking a request was not the same as moving it through a process. We were still dealing with delays, missing documents, and repeated follow-ups. The problem became particularly noticeable when we looked at our audit approval process in procurement management and saw how many manual steps were involved.

Contract approvals created another layer of difficulty. A contract could pass through procurement, department management, finance, and other reviewers before it was finalized. Managing all those handoffs through email made it difficult to know what was waiting and where. That experience pushed us toward automating contract approval processes instead of simply creating more ways to track the work.

Our spreadsheet solution worked until it didn’t

Initially, everyone liked the spreadsheet.

Procurement could see which requests were pending, managers could check what they needed to approve, and the team had a basic record of completed requests. It was better than having information spread across individual inboxes.

The problem was that the spreadsheet depended entirely on people remembering to update it.

When someone approved a request but forgot to update the corresponding row, the information became outdated. If a manager requested an additional document through email, the spreadsheet might still show the request as simply “pending.” A procurement executive then had to investigate what had actually happened.

As the number of requests increased, we started seeing the same issues repeatedly:

• Approval statuses were not always updated on time.
• Supporting documents were stored in different locations.
• Employees had to check email to understand the latest request status.
• Procurement teams spent time chasing pending approvals.
• Managers sometimes received follow-ups for requests they had already reviewed.
• It was difficult to identify exactly where a request had stopped.

The spreadsheet itself was not the problem. We were using a tracking tool to solve what was actually a workflow problem.

More reminders were not the answer

Our next idea was to become more proactive with follow-ups.

Procurement team members started checking pending requests more frequently. If an approval had been sitting for several days, they sent a reminder. If there was still no response, they contacted the approver directly.

This helped in some cases, but it created a new workload for the procurement team.

Instead of spending that time evaluating suppliers, managing purchase requirements, or negotiating with vendors, employees were spending part of their day asking questions like:

“Has this been approved?”

“Are we still waiting for finance?”

“Did the audit team receive the document?”

“Which version of the contract is the latest one?”

We eventually realized that adding more manual follow-ups would only make the process dependent on even more manual effort.

Contract approvals showed us the bigger issue

Contracts were particularly difficult because they rarely followed exactly the same path.

A straightforward renewal might require procurement and management approval. A more complex agreement could require additional financial or legal review. Some contracts might also need supporting documentation before they could move forward.

When all of this happened through email, the process became difficult to follow.

One person would forward a contract to another reviewer. Someone else would reply with changes. A revised version would then be attached to another email. If several contracts were being processed simultaneously, finding the latest version could take considerable time.

There were also situations where a contract was ready for the next approval, but nobody had explicitly notified the next person.

That made us rethink the process from the ground up.

We stopped asking how to track approvals

The biggest change in our thinking came when we stopped asking, “How can we track this better?”

Instead, we asked:

“How should this request move from submission to final approval?”

That led us to separate the actual decision-making from the administrative work surrounding it.

The procurement manager still needed to review the request. The audit team still needed to examine relevant information. Managers still needed to approve contracts.

Those decisions should remain with the appropriate people.

But several tasks around those decisions could be handled more systematically:

• Sending a request to the correct approver
• Moving it to the next stage after approval
• Reminding someone when an action is pending
• Keeping supporting documents with the request
• Recording approval decisions
• Showing the current status of the request
• Routing requests differently based on predefined conditions

This was where automation started to make practical sense.

Automation changed the approval journey

Once the approval rules were clear, we could look at using a workflow platform such as Cflow to connect the different stages.

Instead of procurement manually forwarding every request, the workflow could route it to the appropriate person. Once the review was completed, the request could move to the next stage without someone having to send another email.

The same approach could be applied to contracts. Different approval paths could be created depending on the type or requirements of the contract. A request that needed additional review could follow a longer route, while a straightforward request could move through a simpler path.

What I found most useful was not simply the automation itself. It was the visibility that came with it.

The team could understand where a request was, who needed to act, and what had already been completed without reconstructing the entire history from email conversations.

Audit approvals benefited from the same structure

The audit side of procurement also became easier to manage when information and approvals were connected.

Instead of asking employees to locate documents across different folders, the required information could be associated with the request. The reviewer could then examine the available details and record the decision as part of the workflow.

This also made it easier to handle incomplete requests.

If something was missing, the request could be sent back to the relevant person with a clear reason. Once the information was provided, it could continue through the appropriate stage.

That created a more controlled process without trying to automate the actual judgment involved in an audit review.

What I would do differently now

Looking back, I would not start with automation.

I would start by understanding the process.

Before introducing a workflow platform, procurement teams should identify:

• Which approval stages are genuinely necessary
• Who is responsible for each decision
• What documents are required at each stage
• Which purchases require audit review
• Which contracts require additional approvals
• What should happen when information is incomplete
• How pending approvals should be followed up
• What happens when a request is rejected or sent back

This exercise often reveals unnecessary steps that should be removed before anything is automated.

The lesson from our failed approach

Our spreadsheet was not a complete failure. In fact, it helped expose the weaknesses in the existing process. The same was true of our increased email follow-ups. Each approach showed us that the problem was bigger than simply knowing whether something had been approved.

We needed a process where requests could move through clearly defined stages, with the right people receiving the right information at the right time.

That is where automation can have a meaningful role in procurement. It does not need to replace the people responsible for audit reviews or contract decisions. Instead, it can handle much of the repetitive coordination around those decisions.

The biggest lesson for me was simple: if a team is constantly maintaining spreadsheets, sending reminders, and searching through emails to understand an approval, the problem may not be a lack of tracking. It may be time to rethink the workflow itself.