A purchase request sitting in an inbox for three days is not an approval process. It is a delay with no owner, no audit trail and no clear next step. This Power Automate approval guide explains how small and mid-sized businesses can turn routine decisions into controlled Microsoft 365 workflows that people will actually use.
The aim is not to automate every decision in the business. It is to remove the chasing, duplicated spreadsheets and uncertainty from repeatable approvals such as expenses, annual leave, invoices, policies, contracts and document sign-off. Done properly, an approval flow gives staff a simple way to submit a request and gives managers enough context to make a decision quickly.
Start with the process, not the flow
Power Automate is capable of sending an approval in minutes. That does not mean the underlying process is ready to automate. The most common cause of a poor workflow is not a technical fault. It is taking an unclear manual process and making it faster at producing confusion.
Before building anything, write down what happens from submission to final outcome. Who raises the request? What information does the approver need? Is one approval enough, or are there thresholds? What should happen if the approver is on leave? Where should the final decision be recorded?
For example, an invoice approval process may seem straightforward until you establish that invoices above a certain value need finance and director approval, project costs need a budget-holder’s sign-off, and disputed invoices must be returned with a reason. Those rules should be agreed before anyone starts selecting Power Automate actions.
A good process has a defined trigger, a named owner at each stage and a clear result. If any of those are missing, resolve them first. Automation should make a sound process easier to run, not hide its weak points.
Choose the right place for requests
For many Microsoft 365 approval processes, a SharePoint list is the most practical starting point. It provides a structured record for each request, supports permissions and reporting, and gives staff a visible status rather than an email trail they cannot see.
A leave request list, for instance, might hold the employee, dates, leave type, manager, status, comments and approval date. A flow begins when the item is created, sends the request to the appropriate manager, then updates the list once a decision is made. The employee can check the result without asking HR to search an inbox.
Forms can work well where the request is simple and the record does not need ongoing management. Power Apps becomes worthwhile when the form needs conditional fields, a more guided user experience or access to data from several sources. The choice depends on how often the process runs and how much information people need to provide.
Avoid building a complex approval process around an email trigger if a SharePoint list or document library can provide the system of record. Email is useful for notifications, but it is a poor database. Requests get forwarded, lost in shared mailboxes and detached from the context needed to audit a decision later.
Build approvals around real decision-making
The standard approval action in Power Automate is useful because approvers can respond in Teams, email or the Approvals app. But the action itself is only one part of the design. The request must arrive with enough information for someone to make a decision without opening three other systems.
Include a short description, key values such as cost or dates, a link to the relevant SharePoint item or document, and a clear deadline where one applies. For document approvals, send the approver directly to the version they are being asked to review. Asking people to hunt through a library is a reliable way to slow adoption.
There are several approval patterns, and each has a place:
- Single approval works for a clear manager or process owner, such as annual leave or low-value expenses.
- Everyone must approve suits controlled document sign-off, where every named reviewer needs to respond.
- First response wins can be appropriate for a shared service team where any authorised person may deal with the request.
- Sequential approval is useful when a finance check must happen before a director gives final authority.
Do not add stages simply because they existed in an old paper form. Every extra hand-off adds delay and makes it harder to identify who is holding up the process. A good test is whether each approver has a distinct decision to make. If not, they may only need to be copied in after the outcome.
Define exceptions before they become problems
Approval flows need a plan for the situations that are normal in a working business: people are on holiday, requests are incomplete, a manager changes role or an approver does not respond. These are not edge cases. They are part of the process.
Set sensible time limits and escalation rules. An expense request might go to the line manager first, then be escalated to a finance lead after two working days. A contract approval may need a reminder but no automatic escalation, because the risk of an incorrect approval is higher. The right approach depends on the consequence of delay versus the consequence of a wrong decision.
Use a shared mailbox or defined role only where it is genuinely appropriate. Sending everything to a generic inbox can remove individual accountability. Conversely, making a flow dependent on one named person creates a bottleneck when they leave or are unavailable. Where possible, base routing on a maintained manager field, department or approval matrix rather than hard-coding individual email addresses into a flow.
Rejection should be useful too. Require a comment when a request is declined or sent back for changes. A bare “reject” button creates another round of messages and gives the requester no practical direction.
Keep the record and the notification separate
An approval notification tells someone action is required. The SharePoint item, document library or business system holds the official record. Keeping those roles separate is a small design decision with significant value.
When a decision is made, update the source record with the status, approver, date and comments. If the request has been approved, create the next task, update the related document metadata or notify the relevant team. If it has been rejected, retain the reason and make it visible to the requester.
This creates an audit trail without making staff maintain a separate spreadsheet. It also means managers can see outstanding approvals, turnaround times and common rejection reasons. Those reports often reveal a process issue that automation alone cannot fix, such as requests arriving without mandatory information or approval thresholds that no longer fit the business.
Test the Power Automate approval guide in real conditions
A flow that works with one test user and one neat example is not ready for production. Test it with the scenarios your team will encounter: an incomplete request, a rejection, a delegated approver, multiple approvers, a changed manager and a requester who submits two similar items.
Check permissions carefully. The person receiving an approval may need access to the underlying SharePoint item or document. Giving broad access just to make a flow work may solve one problem while creating a governance issue. In some cases, the approval card can provide enough detail without granting access to sensitive content. In others, a restricted library and carefully managed permissions are necessary.
It is also worth checking who owns the flow. A personal flow built under one employee’s account may fail when that person leaves or their licence changes. For business-critical processes, use an appropriate service account or managed ownership model, document the connections used and make sure more than one administrator can support it.
Plan for support and change
Approval processes rarely stay fixed. Finance limits change, teams restructure and users ask for fields that were not needed at launch. That is why a small amount of ongoing governance matters more than a large initial build.
Keep a short process note that explains the purpose, owner, approvers, exceptions and expected turnaround. Review it after the first month with the people who submit and approve requests. Their feedback will be more useful than a theoretical workshop because it is based on where work actually gets stuck.
For SMEs, the best outcome is usually a focused workflow that removes a visible operational headache, then a measured rollout to the next process. ThePoint regularly sees greater value from three well-owned approvals than from a large automation programme with no clear support model.
Start with the request that causes the most chasing each week. If the process can be described clearly, the owner is known and the result needs recording, it is a strong candidate for Power Automate. Build that one properly, let the team use it, and use what you learn to make the next decision faster and easier to manage.