Click here to get this post in PDF
By: Tatum-Lee
An invoice lands in the accounts inbox on a Thursday afternoon. The supplier’s name is familiar. The amount looks plausible. There is even a delivery address.
What is missing is anyone who can explain it.
Accounts forwards it to operations. Operations asks the site manager. The site manager remembers discussing the order but thinks someone else confirmed it. Meanwhile, the supplier wants to know when payment will arrive.
Consider this a hypothetical example, but a useful test: how quickly could your business establish what happened?
The answer reveals something about how purchasing works when people are busy, colleagues are away, and several jobs need attention at once.
The order was easy. Reconstructing it is expensive.
Placing an order can take minutes. Rebuilding its history several weeks later can involve half a dozen people.
Someone searches their sent emails. Someone else checks a message thread. A manager tries to remember whether the quoted price included delivery. The person who received the goods is working at another location.
Each enquiry sounds minor. Together, they turn a routine purchase into an internal investigation.
For a small business, that work lands on people who already have other responsibilities. An operations manager pauses a customer job. A director gets copied into an email about printer supplies. The bookkeeper cannot finish processing an invoice because nobody has confirmed what arrived.
The problem begins well before the invoice. It starts when a business commits to a purchase without keeping a clear, shared record of the decision.
Separate permission to investigate from permission to spend
“Go ahead and get a price” can become “I thought you said to order it” surprisingly easily.
Businesses need a clear distinction between requesting something, approving the expense and placing the order. Those steps may happen quickly, and the same person may handle more than one, but their meaning should be understood.
Take a replacement piece of equipment. The employee identifies the need. A manager checks the specification and budget. An authorised buyer confirms the order with the supplier.
Before that final step, the record should establish:
– What is being purchased, including quantity and specification.
– Which supplier is providing it.
– The agreed price and any additional charges.
– Which department or project carries the cost.
– Who approved it and where it should be delivered.
This gives colleagues something reliable to refer to when a question arises. It also reduces the chance that an exploratory conversation becomes an unintended commitment.
Make approved orders visible before invoices arrive
Imagine a department with a £12,000 monthly budget. Its records show £7,000 spent, suggesting £5,000 remains available.
However, the team has also placed £3,500 of orders that have yet to be invoiced. Allowing for those commitments leaves £1,500 before any other costs are considered.
A manager looking only at processed invoices could approve another purchase on an incomplete picture.
This is one reason to record orders when they are approved and issued. The business can see spending already committed alongside invoices already received.
Purchasing order systems can support that process through approval workflows, department or project budgets and records of purchasing activity. The practical question when assessing software is whether a manager can see enough information to make the next spending decision confidently.
Delivery needs its own record
An approved order does not establish that everything arrived.
Suppose a business orders 20 chairs. Twelve arrive on Monday; the remaining eight are delayed. If someone marks the whole order as received, accounts may have difficulty identifying the shortfall when the invoice comes through.
If nobody records the delivery, the opposite problem appears: accounts has no confirmation that even the first twelve chairs arrived.
Recording partial deliveries keeps that distinction visible. The person receiving the goods should be able to confirm quantities, note damage and flag outstanding items without searching for the original buyer.
For services, the equivalent might be confirmation that an agreed stage of work has been completed. Either way, the record should reflect what happened rather than what was expected.
Give urgent purchases a workable route
Any purchasing procedure will eventually meet a broken machine, an absent manager or a customer deadline.
If the normal approval route cannot accommodate those situations, employees have an incentive to work around it.
Define an emergency route in advance. Decide who can authorise urgent expenditure, what information must be recorded and who provides cover when the usual approver is unavailable.
Then examine repeated exceptions. Frequent emergency orders from one team may point to an unrealistic approval limit, poor stock planning or a process that takes too long for the work involved.
That is useful operational information. Simply telling people to follow the procedure will not resolve the cause.
Test the process with one recent purchase
Before rewriting a purchasing policy or choosing software, select a completed order and trace it. Can someone outside the original conversation establish who requested it, who approved it, what price was agreed, and whether delivery was complete?
Notice where the search stalls. Perhaps approvals are clear, but delivery records are missing. Perhaps everything exists, but only in one employee’s inbox.
Start with that gap.
A purchasing process earns its place when it helps people answer ordinary questions without interrupting half the business. When the next invoice arrives, accounts should have a record to check and a clear person to contact. That is a practical improvement employees and suppliers can both appreciate.
Also read: Where Your Small Business Loses Online Enquiries and How to Fix It
Image source: Pexels.com
