Business and operations leaders
See where time, capacity and accountability are being lost before deciding what to change.
Invoice Approval Process
Start with an SOP, operations manual or conversation. Sanctum Chat is our conversational process-analysis assistant. It structures that knowledge into a professional model for Sanctum Flow to validate and simulate, revealing delays, risks and improvement opportunities.
Start with a document or a short conversation. No BPMN knowledge required.
This Invoice Approval reference shows the method, evidence and limitations before asking you to trust the result.
Who this is for
Process documentation and improvement are valuable wherever work depends on people, decisions, handoffs or controls. You do not need an internal process team or modelling expertise to begin.
See where time, capacity and accountability are being lost before deciding what to change.
Turn practical knowledge into a shared process that makes roles, decisions and exceptions clear.
Start with a validated model before redesigning controls, testing scenarios or automating work.
How the modelling gap closes
The aim is not to make an SME learn BPMN notation. Sanctum Chat gathers the facts and resolves ambiguity; Sanctum Flow turns the agreed model into a controlled, testable artefact.
Share a non-confidential SOP, operating manual or explain the work conversationally.
Sanctum Chat asks about actors, decisions, exceptions, controls, timing and missing outcomes.
Sanctum Flow checks the definition, renders it and runs disclosed operating scenarios.
3/3 controlled generation benchmark
Three isolated Sanctum Chat runs converted the same synthetic SOP into new draft definitions. Every run passed the pinned source contract and independent Sanctum Flow checks. The displayed v1.7.0 showcase remains the curated reference model; it is not represented as one of the generated benchmark drafts.
Live Process Lab
The definition below is served by Sanctum Flow. It is not copied into this website. Use its Definition, Baseline simulation, Operating improvement, Process redesign and Evidence views to inspect the same versioned showcase bundle.
Scope: Invoice receipt through control validation, approval decision and posting to the payment queue. Excludes: Payment execution, bank settlement and remittance advice.
Sanctum Flow · Invoice Approval Process v1.7.0
Open full screenSequential review, exception handling and approval waiting compound at higher volumes.
Faster routing and exception-focused review reduce waiting while retaining the same control points.
What changes in the operating improvement
The validated BPMN control design stays fixed. Only these disclosed synthetic operating assumptions change:
Process redesign
A separately validated future-state definition automates intake and controls, permits straight-through approval only after a positive fail-closed eligibility decision, routes exceptions to people, escalates unresolved review after four hours, and seals approval evidence before posting.
As-is v1.7.0 → Future state v2.0.0 · Same scope and exclusions · Separate validated BPMN artifact
Capture, validate, match, and classify invoices before they enter human work queues.
Control impact
Mandatory, duplicate, tax, supplier, matching, and tolerance controls remain explicit and auditable.
Only invoices with positive eligibility evidence bypass human approval; every ambiguous result defaults to review.
Control impact
The automated decision and policy version are sealed in the approval record.
Approvers receive only non-eligible invoices, together with the failed eligibility reasons.
Control impact
Accountability remains with the delegated approver while routine work no longer consumes the queue.
A four-hour interrupting SLA escalates overdue exceptions, and approval evidence is integrity-checked before posting.
Control impact
Escalation and posting retain a complete, immutable decision trail.
These are precomputed, synthetic, directional results. They are not a client forecast. Elapsed cycle time is not used in the labour-value calculator below.
What the scenario exposes
A diagram explains the control flow. Scenario analysis shows where waiting and manual work accumulate, so improvement decisions can be tested rather than guessed.
Finding 1
The baseline P95 is nearly three times its median, and sequential approval review contributes about 97% of simulated elapsed time under these assumptions.
Test next
Measure approval-age bands and escalate only when the defined SLA is at risk.
Finding 2
Low-risk, matched invoices consume review capacity when they follow the same operating path as anomalies.
Test next
Apply straight-through controls to routine invoices and direct human attention to mismatches and policy exceptions.
Finding 3
An absent or ambiguous approval-matrix result must never fall through to policy auto-approval.
Test next
Require a positive auto-approval eligibility decision and route every other invoice to human review by default.
Finding 4
Elapsed cycle time and staff touch time answer different questions; combining them would overstate savings.
Test next
Use simulation for flow performance and the transparent calculator for labour-value scenarios.
Transparent value scenario
Change the assumptions to suit your operation. This calculates labour capacity only; it does not convert elapsed simulation time into cash or include implementation cost.
Illustrative only. This is not a quote, guarantee or financial forecast.
Evidence before claims
Employee expense submission with receipt capture, manager approval, finance audit, and payroll integration.
Vendor invoice capture, 2-way/3-way matching, payment run generation, remittance advice, and early payment discount handling.
Purchase request creation, budget validation, PO approval, vendor confirmation, and goods receipt matching.
Start with one process
Tell us what the process does and where it hurts. We will arrange a secure way to review source documents after qualification.