Process automation often starts with a clear goal: it has to be faster. Process invoices faster, move files through faster, reduce waiting time between departments. The first steps usually succeed. You automate recognition, link systems and set up a workflow.
But then the process comes to approval. And that’s precisely where it slows down.
Not because the technology does not work, but because the decision moment is not set up sharply enough. Processing is automated. Assessment still requires interpretation. And that’s exactly where you see if process automation is really thought through.
Why formatting sticks in practice
Fiatting is the moment when someone has to decide substantively: is this correct, does this fit within agreement and budget, can this amount be approved? This only works when the file is clear and complete.
In practice, we keep seeing the same causes of delay recurring:
- The invoice contains no or an incorrect PO or contract reference.
- The price or quantity differs from the order.
- The available budget is not visible.
- Theiaturer’s mandate is unclear.
- Context is missing: why is this deviation acceptable?
In all those cases, someone has to go find out. The approver mails, files back or forwards. As a result, the process slows down. Not by volume, but by uncertainty. The work is not in approving, but in reconstructing the context.
As long as this information is not explicitly part of the process, approval remains dependent on individual knowledge and judgment. And where interpretation is leading, differences in pace and outcome arise.
What it takes to make fiatting workable
Process automation only really adds value when you consciously design the decision moment. That means defining in advance what is standard and what is an exception.
Is a PO missing? If so, it must be visible before approval. Does the price differ? Then the difference must be immediately recognizable. Is the amount above the mandate? Then the process must escalate automatically.
What does not work is a complete file in which relevant information is hidden somewhere in lines of detail.
Fiattering becomes workable when the fiatteur sees at a glance:
- Which controls have already been implemented,
- What anomalies have been identified,
- and whether he is authorized to approve.
The value is not in automating actions, but in making decision criteria explicit.
Then the role of the fiatteur changes: not to check everything again, but to make a focused assessment of what needs attention. That is where calmness and often speed arise, as a logical consequence of clarity.
Specifically, what can you improve
Fiatting usually gets bogged down not in technology, but in ambiguity in the process. Who assesses what, based on what information, and what counts as standard? If that remains implicit, delays keep coming back.
Below helps to bring into focus what the system captures and where substantive judgment begins.
- Bring the approval moment into sharp focus
Where does the actual review take place? Don’t look at the workflow on paper, but at where invoices remain. That’s where the real decision moment is.
- Make assessment criteria explicit
When is something standard and when is it a deviation? Without clear criteria, approval remains subject to interpretation.
- Establish roles and mandate in the process
Who gets to approve what, and up to what amount? Make sure the system knows these limits. Doubt about authority almost always leads to delay.
- Perform checks before approval
Match order, contract and budget in advance. Fiatting is not a control layer, but a decision moment.
- Make deviations visible
Don’t hide differences in detailed rules. Mark them explicitly and send them to the appropriate owner.
- Measure for recovery work, not just speed
Look at chargebacks and corrections, that’s where you’ll see if approval really works better.
What we see working in practice
In processes that we supervise, we set up approval as an explicit decision moment in the process. Upon approval, the file is complete, automatic checks are visible, and deviations are immediately assigned to the appropriate responsible party. Roles and mandates are defined in the workflow itself.
This only works when the system does more than register and forward. Recognition and matching are prerequisites; the real benefit comes when controls are transparent and responsibilities are clearly defined.
This requires not only technology, but also clear agreements. Process automation rarely falters because of software, but because of implicit decision-making. Make the decision moment explicit, then approval becomes a logical and predictable part of the process.
Frequently Asked Questions
Because fiatting is a decision moment. If assessment criteria are not explicitly defined, the process remains dependent on individual interpretation.
No, process automation supports by providing information in a complete and structured way. Content judgment remains with the fiatteur where appropriate.
By establishing what criteria determine approval and making them visible in the process.
Processing is about collecting, recording and checking data. Fiatting is about reviewing and approving. The latter requires clear criteria, not just speed.
In processes with high volume, multiple approval layers or recurring discrepancies. That’s where the most gains in consistency, less rework and more oversight occur.
