Hi @alexis-kruse ,
Step 1:
Create Audit rule to identify such expenses which need approval from HR.
Event = Expense entry save
Example:
Expense type = Hotel
OR
Expense type = Tax
OR
.
.
. so on
Exception code = HRAPR
Exception Level = 1
Msg = Additional HR approval is required for this expense type.
Step 2:
Go to workflow and add HR step in workflow as shown below in 1st screenshot.
2nd screenshot - HR step should skip for those expenses which doesn't require any HR approval.
3rd screenshot - expenses which need HR approval will get routed to the specific person which you have added in workflow under change approver step.
Hi @antona ,
You may name the workflow step according to your requirements—for example, HR, Finance, or IT approval—but the role assigned will remain Expense Approver.
Regarding the authorized approver role, please note that it is only useful when approvers vary based on the type of cost object—for example, when different approvers are assigned for cost centers, departments, or legal entities.
Hence, in your scenario, you don't need to use authorized approver step.
Please find below sample screenshot:
If this answers your query, then please mark solution as accepted.
Hi PoojaKumatkar,
Thank you very much for your quick response.
I have tested the scenario you mentioned (screenshots are included below), and the main issue we are facing is related to the order of the steps. The client requires this validation to occur **before** the manager approval step, so it must be the first step in the workflow.
However, since we use an Expense Approver step and the condition is skipped when the expense type does not match (when it is not the specific expense type), the system also skips the following step (the normal manager approval), because it detects that the same user is assigned (expense approver role).
This creates a major issue, which is why I initially thought that an Authorized Approver step would be necessary.
Please let me know if you have any suggestions or alternative approaches.
Thank you again for your support, I really appreciate it.
The last condition in Manager Approval step, is because the CEO doesn’t have an N+1, so it goes to the CFO. This is working normally in the system right now.
Thanks,
Angelina
Hi @antona,
This issue is happening because you have used same Expense Approver role for subscription approval and manager approval step.
Also, there are some minor mistakes in workflow step conditions. I tried workflow in our sandbox and tested all possible scenarios including expense type, payment type and exempt from approval conditions. In all scenarios my workflow is working fine.
Can you please try replicating my below conditions into your workflow and test.
Remaining all your workflow steps and conditions keep it as is.
After updating conditions, please validate all the scenarios and let me know if it works for you.
Note - While testing workflow, would suggest approving it from all levels as correct change approver name reflects only when report reached to that step.
Thank you very much for the time you’ve dedicated to helping me.
I wanted to let you know that in the system setup, the manager is assigned as the Expense Approver in the expense workflow, and also as the Default Approver in the request workflow (see screenshots below). So I made the test but again the Manager Approval step is skipped.
Request:
Expense:
So essentially, the manager is occupying both roles (Default Approver + Expense Approver). This means that when I set the specific employee as the default approver, the system still recognises him as the manager.
I’m also not sure whether I should remove the manager from the Expense Approver role and assign him only as the Default Approver. The implementors may have configured it this way for a reason, so I might need to check with them.
In any case, thank you so much -your guidance really helped me figure things out! (Of course, if you have any other ideas, they are more than welcome!)
Angelina
Hi @antona ,
Please note the following points:
- Request approval roles differ from expense approval roles. Therefore, different approvers can be defined for request and expense approvals in the user profile.
- In the expense workflow, the Default Approver and Expense Approver roles may be different, but the user profile uses a single field to store the approver. This means that if both roles are used in the workflow, the Default Approver and Expense Approver will effectively be the same, as they cannot be defined separately in the user profile.
Regarding the question about why the manager step is being skipped?
During testing, I also observed this behavior and initially did not have an explanation. However, I would not say the system is skipping the manager approval. Instead, the report is being routed directly to the manager’s manager.
After researching this, I found the following reasoning:
In your scenario, point #1 applies because we are using a Change Approver step when the report contains a specific XXXX expense type and payment type.
Therefore, to ensure your workflow functions correctly, you need to configure it as shown below. In this setup, the manager approval step is at the second level. If you assign a different role (Default Approver) for the manager approval step, the system will treat it as the second level and will correctly pick the default manager from the user profile.
However, if you use the Expense Approver role at this step, the system will treat it as the first approval level—since this role is already used at level one. As a result, the actual manager defined in the user profile will be skipped, and the report will instead be routed to the manager’s manager.
Based on my understanding, this minor change should not affect the rest of your workflow configuration or other related settings. However, it’s best to confirm with your implementors. Once they review and agree, you can proceed with making the necessary adjustments and perform testing.
You can refer remaining workflow conditions screenshot from my previous response.
If this answers your query, then please mark solution as accepted.
