Purchase requisition approvals are supposed to prevent spend-by-surprise.
In many organizations, they do the opposite: they slow procurement and still fail to provide governance.
If you want upstream approvals to be explicit and auditable (not a policy PDF), start here: purchase requisition approval workflow dubai.
Pitfall 1: approving ambiguous scope
If scope is unclear, approvals become negotiation.
Fix:
- Validate scope completeness before submission
- Require consistent line items, quantities, and units
- Reject (with reason) when scope is unclear
Pitfall 2: using approvals as “budget validation”
Approvals are not a substitute for budget ownership clarity.
Fix:
- Separate “is this within budget ownership” from “is this needed”
- Make budget ownership explicit (project/package)
Pitfall 3: approvals happen after execution starts
If POs are sent and then approvals happen “for the record”, governance is gone.
Fix:
- Enforce upstream approvals before committing to suppliers
- Keep approval outcomes in the system of record
Relevant downstream pages:
Pitfall 4: no evidence requirements
When evidence isn’t required, approvals become subjective.
Fix:
- Define evidence requirements for specific conditions:
- new vendor
- substitution/exception scope
- high value
- multi-currency exposure
Pitfall 5: escalation is not deterministic
If escalation is “whoever is available”, approvals become unpredictable and teams bypass them.
Fix:
- Define deterministic escalation rules by condition (amount, exception flags, category)
- Keep the workflow simple enough that teams can actually follow it
The simplest PR approval design principle
Make the default path fast and the high-risk path controlled.
If everything is controlled, teams will bypass. If nothing is controlled, audits will hurt.
Next steps
If you want PR approvals to be an explicit, auditable workflow connected into RFQs and POs, start with: