Hi, 

You would have two rules. Rule 1 for person A and 1500 max. It would have a priority of 10 (for example) that includes person A only.  Rule 2 would be nearly identical (data selection options) with no limit or limit higher than 1500 with a priority of 20 (for example) that is higher number than rule 1.  The second rule would then have two people A and B.  

Rule 1 is triggered first, if the amount is 1500 or less.  If the amount is over 1500, then rule 2 is triggered and A and B must authorize.  Make sure rule 1 priority is lower than rule 2. 

Best regards

I thought I tried this once and it required Person A to authorize it twice if over $1500.  I also tried two different rules, one for Person A and one for Person B with the rule for person A having Priority 10 and Person B having Priority 20.

If rule 1 only has 1 sequence (authorization routing rule sequence) then only 1 person needs to authorize. You “may” also be including the option on your authorizer assigning rule to include the invoice recipient as an acknowledger / authorizer (check box) _- consider removing that option.  That option may then add an additional authorization step you did not anticipate. 

I should clarify my first comment. This is true when you're not using groups, if using a group then any member of the group would be able to authorize - you still would see one record to authorize.

I’m thinking the optional box is probably selected and maybe that’s causing the second record. It’s a common process to skip - unchecking the box.  

Best regards

Please review the authorizer routing rule. You would have two routing rules as well. The routing rule is - Who acts, one or more people.  Then the assigning rule is under what conditions is an assigning rule triggered.  If you have two assisting rules and only 1 routing rule, then under two sets of conditions you have the exact same set of people for the authorizers.   This is helpful for example when a plant manager needs to authorize certain expenses, but these expenses must be managed by different assigning rules (different suppliers, code strings etc). Under x conditions the same plant manager needs to authorize the invoice postings. 

I have the following:

Authorizer Assigning Rules:

Below1500  Priority 290

1500+  Priority 300

Authorization Routing Rules:

Below 1500  Only Person A (Seq 10)

1500+  Both Person A (Seq 10) and Person B (Seq 20)

Hi, 

Maybe I’m missing something but … looks like both assigning rules select the same routing rule.  looks like both assigning rules select the 1500+ rule.   I could be wrong, but it looks like that’s the case.  My understanding is that under 1500 you want one person to authorize based on the 1500- authorizer routing rule, and then over 1500 you want two people based on the 1500+ routing rule.  Check the below 500 rule (with description up to 1500) and see if that rule is connected with the 1500- routing rule. Per the screen shot it looks like it’s connected to the 1500+.   It looks that way. 

Best regards

Thomas, yes, sorry rushed through it.  Fixed using the 1500- rule.  Also, unchecked Assign last step as authorizer...not sure what that does.

You probably need to recheck the authorization process. Any changes you make do not retroactively update an existing invoice.  You can create a new invoice or remove the old authorization entries on the previous invoice and trigger the authorization process again.   Hopefully this is still a test environment, and you can simply cancel and copy. That should trigger the revised rule set up. 

Any ideas what would cause this error when my top level approver goes in to approve an invoice under this approval level?

For some reason he only has the acknowledge button.  Same settings as above.

Hi, 

You're hiding a good deal of information / not providing other necessary information - so based on the error message I would say - look at the invoice - authorization information.  Looks to me like the person noted on the invoice authorization area is an acknowledger and you don’t have a record listed as an authorizer.  You are not required to use the acknowledger, that is optional, an “authorizer” is mandatory.