Reducing purchase approval delays

This story shows a practical response to "regular items under ₹1 lakh no longer wait for the owner.".

Before

The supplier commitment tracker is open, but nobody can identify the next owner. The issue now being examined is reducing purchase approval delays. The routine depends on the purchase manager knowing which call, slip or instruction matters. Records exist in purchase orders, supplier confirmations, rate histories and receipt notes, but another person cannot reliably reconstruct the decision. This is the problem behind reducing purchase approval delays.

A request arrives and somebody responds to the loudest part first. The original source is left in a folder or WhatsApp chat. Later, when the stores manager needs to review it, people reconstruct what happened from memory. The missing piece is often PO reference, latest confirmed date, material need date and receipt quantity. By the time it is found, another person has already acted on an assumption.

The cost is visible as interrupted work, repeated checking or a promise that needs correcting. No saving or improvement figure is claimed here. The point is to change one repeatable action so that the next case can be handled without a chain of calls.

Why it was like that

The previous method relies on informal permission and experience. Staff may understand the right thing to do, but not where to record it or who can approve an exception. Adding a shared spreadsheet without clarifying authority would leave the same bottleneck in place.

In this example, the control that is missing is a revised delivery date is recorded against the old promise; do not overwrite history. An urgent request can legitimately break the normal rule. The exception still needs a named decision-maker, a reason and a source reference. Otherwise the exception becomes the usual way of working.

The change

The replacement is a one-page supplier commitment tracker. Sort purchase requests into routine and exception. This is the required check before an instruction moves to the next person. Publish example spending limits. Finally, give managers a recorded approval path. Each line retains the evidence needed if the decision is challenged later.

Copyable rule for this team

Example register rows, for illustration only:

Reference	Source	Required action	Owner	Status
S046-01	supplier commitment tracker	Sort purchase requests into routine and exception	purchase manager	Open
S046-02	written supplier commitment and matching receipt note	publish example spending limits	stores manager	Check

The owner can set a sample limit, but it should be based on actual financial exposure, not copied from another firm. A rule that touches statutory dues, credit, worker pay or electrical safety also needs a qualified reviewer.

After

In the revised composite routine, the first person records the incoming request once. Another team member can see its source, status and next action without recontacting everybody. The stores manager sees only the cases needing judgement. Routine cases move under written delegated authority.

For the specific case in this article, the first visible change is sort purchase requests into routine and exception. The next person can then publish example spending limits. At the end, give managers a recorded approval path. That sequence matters because each part leaves a record that the next role can verify.

A weekly check samples a few entries rather than trusting the tick column. The manager looks for cases marked closed without supporting evidence, repeat exceptions and requests that still depend on the owner. Those are reasons to revise the rule.

What to watch out for

Staff may start filling the register after the event. Check the time and reference against the source.
The authorised manager may approve an exception by phone and forget to record it. Ask for the decision to be added to the same entry.
The team may treat every request as urgent. Compare actual deadlines and commercial or safety effects before changing priority.

A verbal promise is a lead, not proof of delivery. Ask for date, dispatch quantity and transporter details.

Copy it

Use the table above as a starting point. Replace the example entries with two current cases. Mark unclear evidence as Open, then name the next person to check it. Keep the source record, owner, next review date and reason for any override. An example exposure of ₹2,40,000 or 33 units is illustrative only; set limits from your own business records.

Start with Purchase approval sop. If you need the full sequence, use Purchase approval limits. Measure open exceptions and missed commitments for four reviews before deciding whether the change holds.