Month-end request to bypass invoice approval
A finance operations director asks the robotics team to disable the dual-approval control in an accounts payable bot for 48 hours. The bot processes 800 invoices per day and enforces dual approval for any invoice above $25,000. Month-end close is in three days, and 140 high-value invoices are stuck because the second approver is on leave. The director says the invoices are 'pre-approved' by email and wants the bot to post them directly so the team can meet close. Internal audit requires an immutable approval trail and segregation of duties; the bot currently writes each approval to a log that is reconciled daily. The IT change board meets weekly, and the next window is after close. The director has escalated to your delivery manager, who asks you to 'make it work.' You have a good relationship with the finance team and do not want to damage it.
1. How do you respond to the director and your delivery manager?
Read the worked answer
Acknowledge the close pressure, but separate the request from the control. Disabling dual approval for 48 hours would remove segregation of duties and create an audit finding, even if the invoices are pre-approved by email. Email is not the system of record, and the bot's log would show posting without the required second approval. I would tell the director what I cannot do and why, then offer concrete alternatives. I would also tell my delivery manager that I will not make the change informally and that the request needs a documented risk decision by the control owner, not just the operations director. I would ask for the list of 140 invoices, the names of the approvers, and whether a delegate can be appointed in the ERP. If the business still wants an emergency exception, it must go through the emergency change process with audit and time bounds. The relationship is preserved by being responsive and solution-oriented, not by silently bypassing a control.
2. What alternatives preserve the close timeline without breaking segregation of duties?
Read the worked answer
The best option is to fix the approval path, not the bot. In most ERPs a backup approver or delegation can be configured for the absent approver, preserving dual approval. If the emails are genuine pre-approvals, a human with authority can enter the second approval in the system and attach the email evidence; the bot then posts normally. Another option is dual custody: two authorized finance users review and release the batch, with the bot only posting after both approvals are recorded. If the ERP cannot delegate quickly, an emergency change can be time-bound, limited to the 140 invoices, require a second human reviewer, and produce an audit report for post-close review. I would not let the bot post directly. The reasoning is that the control objective is independent review, not a particular button. Any alternative must preserve evidence and segregation of duties.
3. What would you document and communicate after the decision?
Read the worked answer
Document the request, the decision, the risk owner, and the alternatives considered. The record should state that dual approval was not disabled, which invoices were affected, who approved any emergency path, and what audit evidence exists. Communicate to finance, internal audit, and the change board in plain language. Update the runbook with the delegation procedure so the next absence does not become an emergency. After close, hold a short review: how many invoices were stuck, why the approver absence was not anticipated, and whether a standing delegation rule is needed. Also confirm that the bot's approval log reconciled. If the director remains unhappy, escalate through the accountable control owner rather than the delivery manager alone. The collaboration lesson is to protect the relationship by offering workable options and being transparent about the risk, not by promising a bypass.