The hidden cost of informal approvals
In many small firms approvals happen in corridors, on instant-message threads, or in the course of another conversation. The decision is made, work proceeds, and later no one can remember who authorised the spend, the exception, or the change of scope. When a client queries an invoice or a supplier disputes a variation, the firm has no clear record. The same informality also creates delay: people wait for a verbal go-ahead that never arrives because the decision-maker was never formally asked.
A simple approval process does not need software or elaborate forms. It needs a clear rule about which decisions require approval, who can give it, and how the approval is recorded. Once those three elements exist, both speed and accountability improve.
Deciding which decisions need formal approval
Not every choice requires a formal step. Routine expenditure below a defined threshold, standard client work within an existing engagement, and day-to-day operational adjustments can remain informal. Formal approval is reserved for decisions that commit the firm to significant cost, that alter the scope or terms of a client engagement, that create ongoing obligations, or that set a precedent others will follow.
Publish the threshold and the categories so that everyone knows when the process applies. Ambiguity here is the main reason informal habits persist.
Naming the approvers and the sequence
For each category of decision, identify the person or people who must approve. In a small firm this is often a single partner or director; for larger commitments it may be two people in sequence. Name the roles rather than relying on "someone will look at it." When the required approver is absent, nominate a deputy so that work does not stall.
The sequence matters. If two people must both approve, state the order. Parallel approvals can work for speed, but only if both parties are told that the other's agreement is also required.
Recording the approval in a way that survives scrutiny
An approval that exists only in a private message or a verbal exchange is almost useless later. The minimum record is a short written statement that names the decision, the date, the person who requested it, and the person who approved it. This can live in a shared spreadsheet, a dedicated email folder, or a simple document. The record does not need to be elaborate; it needs to be findable and unambiguous.
Some firms use a standard subject line or a shared tag so that approval emails can be retrieved quickly. Others paste the approval into the relevant project or client file. The method is less important than consistency.
Making the process fast enough that people actually use it
If obtaining approval takes days, people will bypass the process. Design the route so that a decision can normally be turned around within one working day. That may mean setting expectations with approvers about response times, or creating a short daily window when pending approvals are reviewed. Speed is part of the design, not an afterthought.
When a request is refused, the reason should be recorded alongside the refusal. This prevents the same request being re-submitted in slightly different form and gives the requester clear guidance for any revised proposal.
Reviewing the process so it stays proportionate
Approval processes tend to accumulate extra steps over time. A quarterly review that examines recent approvals-how long they took, whether the right people were involved, and whether any category is generating unnecessary friction-keeps the process lean. Categories that never produce risk can be removed from the formal list; categories that repeatedly cause problems can be tightened.
A simple approval process protects the firm from unrecorded commitments and inconsistent decisions without adding bureaucracy. When the rules are clear, the approvers are named, and the record is reliable, both accountability and speed increase.