Journal Entry Approval Workflow

Why should we automate journal entry approval instead of managing it by email and spreadsheets?

Manual journal approval tracking relies on preparers and reviewers remembering to follow up, which makes it easy for entries to stall or for correction cycles to lose their history. This workflow captures each submission as a record with a reference number and status, so the current state of every journal entry is visible without chasing emails. It also applies the approval threshold routing automatically, reducing the chance of an entry reaching the wrong approver.

What is the ROI of using this workflow for journal entry review and approval?

The workflow removes the administrative overhead of manually assigning reviewers, tracking correction rounds, and routing approvals based on amount, freeing finance staff to focus on the substance of each entry. Because acknowledgement and outcome emails are sent automatically, preparers spend less time asking for status updates. Table views and dashboards showing records by status also make it easier to spot entries waiting on review or approval without a separate tracking spreadsheet.

How does this compare to handling journal entry approvals manually?

Manual handling typically depends on individual staff members to notice new submissions, remember the approval threshold, and forward corrections to the right reviewer. This workflow instead moves each journal entry through Submitted, In Review, Returned, Rejected and Ready to Post statuses automatically, with the record timeline showing what happened and when. The threshold-based routing to the financial controller or finance manager also happens without anyone needing to check the total amount manually.

Who is responsible for reviewing a submitted journal entry?

A reviewer, who must not be the preparer, is assigned to check the journal entry and record whether it is correct or needs correction, along with comments. The workflow waits for this review result before proceeding, and the result and comments are saved to the record. This separation between preparer and reviewer supports a basic segregation of duties in the review step.

What happens if the reviewer finds the journal entry needs correction?

The status is set to Returned, and the preparer is emailed the reviewer's comments with a request for the corrected entry. Once the preparer replies, the corrected entry is saved to the record and the workflow returns to the In Review stage for the reviewer to re-check it. This correction cycle can repeat up to three times before the entry proceeds through the standard routing.

How does the $50,000 threshold decide who approves a journal entry?

After a journal entry passes review, the workflow checks the Total Amount field: entries over $50,000 are routed to the financial controller for approval, while entries of $50,000 or less go to the finance manager. Each approver's decision is then routed to either a Rejected or Ready to Post outcome, with the preparer notified by email accordingly. This keeps the threshold rule applied consistently without a staff member needing to check it manually each time.

What does the preparer see and receive during the process?

The preparer submits the initial journal entry through the request form, providing details such as journal type, period, accounts and amounts, total amount, business reason and supporting evidence. They receive an acknowledgement email with their reference number after submission, and may be emailed again if corrections are needed. At the end of the process they receive an email confirming whether the journal entry was rejected or is ready to post.

Can this workflow be adjusted to match our organisation's approval thresholds or steps?

Yes, the workflow can be changed by describing the change in plain English or by editing its steps directly in the workflow editor, and earlier versions are kept. This means the $50,000 threshold, the number of correction cycles, or the wording of preparer notifications can be adjusted to fit an organisation's own policies. Changes take effect for future runs without requiring a separate development project.

How is journal entry status information tracked and reported?

Each journal entry is a record with a reference number, a current status, and a timeline showing what happened at each step, including review results, corrections and approval decisions. Table views and dashboards display records grouped by status, such as In Review, Returned, Rejected or Ready to Post. Businesses should confirm how this record-keeping aligns with their own internal control and audit requirements.

Do reviewers, approvers or preparers need a login to take part?

Reviewers and approvers work as workspace members completing assigned tasks within the platform. Preparers take part through the public request form for submission and through emailed forms for acknowledgements, correction requests, and outcome notifications, without needing an account of their own.