Skip to main content

Currently our companies are configured so that the invoices inherit the purchase authorization routing when they are matched to a PO.  If there is a discrepancy on a payables invoice that is greater than the invoice tolerance, the invoice will require reauthorization by the purchaser again.  If the invoice matches the po, no additional authorization is required.  This works great except when a purchase authorizer leaves or changes responsibilities.

What we’re seeing is when a user who authorized a po is no longer an authorizer, the invoice authorization cannot be inherited and as a result the invoice will get Assigning rule ID 9000 which has no code part restrictions.

Is there something specific that we should be doing when a purchase authorizer is no longer a purchase authorizer?

Is anyone seeing issues with Invoice Authorizations when purchase authorizer no longer exists?

Hi, 

I have not had to resolve this for a client for so I’m taking a guess,

I’m thinking best practice would be to use the Purchase Authorizer groups. Remove the user from the group(s).  For easy configuration for the replacement. 

Also in both purchase authorizers and in the finance side invoice posting authorizers, we have the the concepts  of superior authorizer and substitute.  The idea is establish both a superior authorizer and substitute to replace the authorizer.  The purchase authorizer is shown but very similar options exist in the invoice posting authorizers. 

If the PO was authorized by X, with a substitute Y,  I believe the supplier invoice may have / allow substitute Y.   Otherwise the superior authorizer can authorize that invoice posting. 

This would be to manage the open transactions.    At the same time, security profile may be used to block authorization actions. 

For the go forward plan, by using the authorizer groups it’s very easy to replace X with Y in the groups without having to refine the rules. 

Best regards, 

Thomas

We have setup a substitute, which does the trick for us when someone is leaving.

Terms & ConditionsCookie settings