DATIMORE · WEB-035 · WORKED EXAMPLE

One purchase, from request to confirmed order update

Keep the approved amount and the latest order information in view, so the warehouse can plan its work.

Synthetic planning example. All records, prices, roles, policies and dates are invented. This is a static illustration, not a live workflow or a client result. It creates no orders or payments. Numbered events show sequence, not measured processing speed.

The request and its budget

Request PR-S035

Requester / department
Warehouse supervisor / Operations
Items and purpose
8 label printers to equip packing stations.
Delivery
Demo warehouse A; needed by 12 October 2026.
Supplier / evidence
Demo Supplier A; written quotes Q-1 and Q-2.
Full cost and currency
Initial quote: SAR 18,000. Revised quote: SAR 24,000. Both are illustrative all-in totals for 8 printers, including applicable delivery and taxes.

Budget OPS-035

Available before this request
SAR 25,000 after other commitments, excluding PR-S035.
Evidence / owner
Budget snapshot BUD-035, checked on 2 October 2026 by the budget owner. Finance reconfirms the balance before the final approval.
After approving the revised amount
SAR 24,000 is committed to this request; SAR 1,000 remains available.
What this assumes
No other commitments change between the final budget check and recording this purchase commitment. A real process must prevent two requests from using the same available balance.

The route under this example's rules

Five stages: complete the request, check budget and authority, record human decisions, pass to purchasing, link confirmed order updates.
Conceptual flow only. Changes return for review; rejection closes the request.
  1. Complete the request. Missing required fields return to the requester with a reason. No approval or ordering follows until corrected.
  2. Check budget and authority. A total above zero and up to SAR 20,000 needs the department manager. Above SAR 20,000 needs the manager, then finance. Every request must fit the current available budget.
  3. Record the human decisions. Each decision identifies the person, date, request revision, quote, amount, budget evidence and reason. A changed purchase needs a new budget check and fresh decisions. Rejection closes it and tells the requester why; silence is never approval.
  4. Pass the approved purchase to purchasing. A separately authorized purchasing colleague checks the final order matches the approved request and records the order reference. These are example roles, not universal authority rules.
  5. Link order updates. Show separately whether the order was issued, the supplier confirmed it, and goods were received. Record the source, date and owner of each update. An unknown status stays unknown.

The requester, manager, finance approver and purchasing colleague are separate people here. Agree real authority, access, authorized cover for absences and follow-up responsibilities before using a live process.

Why the approved amount changes

  1. 1 · Requester submits revision 1

    Eight printers; quote Q-1; SAR 18,000; budget OPS-035. The budget owner checks SAR 25,000 is available.

  2. 2 · Manager approves revision 1

    The amount is within the manager's illustrative SAR 20,000 limit. No order has been issued.

  3. 3 · Requester submits revision 2

    Quote Q-2 replaces Q-1 before ordering. The same eight printers now cost SAR 24,000. Revision 1's approval remains in history, but cannot authorize this new total.

  4. 4 · Manager and finance approve revision 2

    The manager approves the revised purchase. Finance reconfirms the SAR 25,000 available balance and approves SAR 24,000 against BUD-035. The commitment is recorded once, leaving SAR 1,000. The saved decision retains both identities, quote and revision.

  5. 5 · Purchasing records the order

    Order PO-S035 matches revision 2 and quote Q-2: eight printers, SAR 24,000. Status: issued; supplier confirmation pending. Purchasing owns follow-up on 3 October. Approval alone did not confirm delivery.

  6. 6 · Purchasing records the supplier's reply

    Confirmation ACK-S035, dated 3 October, confirms the order and planned delivery on 12 October. Purchasing links it to PO-S035. The warehouse can now plan around a confirmed expected date.

Final example status: revision 2 approved; order issued; supplier confirmed 12 October as the expected delivery date. Goods have not yet been received. No payment status is asserted. A confirmed date is not a delivery guarantee.

Decision record

The saved approval decisions

All three decisions below are dated 2 October 2026; their order follows events 2 and 4 above. Each synthetic person ID represents a distinct authorized user. No order was issued against revision 1.

  • Decision D-1 · Manager M-01 · Approved
    Request PR-S035, revision 1; Q-1; SAR 18,000; budget OPS-035 / BUD-035. Reason: eight printers needed for packing stations; current budget checked and amount within manager authority. Retained as history after the quote changed.
  • Decision D-2 · Manager M-01 · Approved
    Request PR-S035, revision 2; Q-2; SAR 24,000; budget OPS-035 / BUD-035. Reason: need unchanged; revised full cost accepted, subject to finance approval. This decision alone did not release the request to purchasing.
  • Decision D-3 · Finance F-01 · Approved after D-2
    Request PR-S035, revision 2; Q-2; SAR 24,000; budget OPS-035 / BUD-035. Reason: reconfirmed SAR 25,000 available after other commitments; revised request fits the budget and has manager approval. Finance completed the required route; final reservation is SAR 24,000 once for this request.

Budget records must account for any earlier reservation on the same request. Here, no reservation or order was made for revision 1. In a real system, a revision replaces its earlier reservation rather than counting the same purchase twice.

Try the exceptions before using real requests

Missing information, budget shortfall and rejection
  • No budget reference: return to the requester to complete it. No approval, commitment or order.
  • Only SAR 23,000 available for SAR 24,000: return for a revised request or an authorized budget decision under company policy. This example offers no override and does not approve the shortfall.
  • Finance rejects revision 2: close it with the stated reason and notify the requester. Do not fall back to revision 1 or create an order. This is an alternative outcome, not part of the approved path above.
  • No supplier confirmation: keep “confirmation pending” and the purchasing owner's follow-up date visible. Do not show the requested date as confirmed.
  • Zero, negative or unclear total: return for correction. An invalid amount must not choose an approval route.

Use your company's purchasing policy and test its rules with the people responsible. This illustration does not test software, security, accounting treatment or legal compliance. Invoice review and payment need their own processes.

Background: Microsoft's purchase-requisition workflow documentation describes review, returns and authority-based routing. It supports the concepts, not these invented thresholds or a claim that this is a tested Dynamics implementation. Source checked 2 October 2026.