Approval workflows and SLA dashboards are bought to answer two questions: who needs to sign this off, and are we meeting our commitments. Software that answers both without becoming a second job to maintain is less common than the market suggests. Singapore-based AV and IPTV integrator Prestige Solutions recommends building the procurement brief around your existing approval reality rather than an idealised one, because a workflow that does not match how decisions are actually made gets bypassed.
Most operations already have an approval process, usually a mix of email, messaging, and verbal agreement with occasional formal sign-off. The temptation is to specify the process the organisation wishes it had.
That produces a system people work around. A better brief documents the current reality including the informal shortcuts, then identifies which of those shortcuts are risks worth closing and which are sensible adaptations worth preserving.

Assemble these before requesting quotations. They make proposals comparable and expose scope differences early.
SLA definitions deserve care. Disagreements about whether the clock starts at request or at acknowledgement, and whether it pauses awaiting customer input, cause more dashboard disputes than any technical issue. Settle the definitions before procurement.
These separate systems designed for real operations from those built around an idealised process.
| Question | What a good answer indicates |
|---|---|
| How is delegation handled when an approver is away? | Recognises that approvals must not stall on absence |
| Can approval routes differ by value or type? | Supports realistic thresholds rather than one path |
| How is the SLA clock defined and can it pause? | Understands that definitions drive disputes |
| Can we change a workflow without vendor involvement? | Determines whether the system tracks reality |
| What happens to in-flight approvals when a workflow changes? | Shows the product has handled real change |
| How is an approval audited after the fact? | Confirms the record withstands scrutiny |
The in-flight question is revealing. Workflows change, and a system that cannot handle items already in progress when a route changes will produce either stuck requests or silent reassignments.

Once functionality is comparable, four things usually decide: how much you can change without the vendor, how the system behaves when a workflow changes, whether the SLA definitions can be configured to match your commitments, and how much administration it needs each month.
Budget the ongoing configuration effort as well as the licence. A workflow system that cannot be updated by your own team will either stop matching the organisation or generate a stream of change requests, and both outcomes carry real cost.
Define the acceptance test in the brief. A practical version runs three real approval scenarios end to end, including one where the primary approver is unavailable, plus an SLA report reconciled against manually calculated figures for the same period.
That reconciliation step is worth insisting on. A dashboard producing numbers nobody has verified against reality is a reporting risk rather than a management tool.

Approval and dashboard software is usually licensed per user with configuration quoted separately. As of 2026, the configuration and ongoing change effort is the line most often underestimated, particularly where approval routes differ across departments.
| Cost driver | What moves the number | Planning note |
|---|---|---|
| User count by role | Approvers and requesters may license differently | Confirm whether view-only users are chargeable |
| Workflow configuration | Each distinct approval route needs building and testing | Start with the highest-volume routes |
| Integration | Links to finance, ticketing, or asset systems | Rank by whether they remove manual re-entry |
| Change rights | Whether your team can edit routes without the vendor | The main driver of running cost |
| Reporting setup | SLA definitions and report configuration | Reconcile against manual figures before going live |
Definition disagreements rather than technical faults: whether the clock starts at request or acknowledgement, and whether it pauses while awaiting customer input. Settle these definitions before procurement, and reconcile the first reports against manually calculated figures for the same period.
The system must allow authority to pass when an approver is unavailable, without requiring an administrator to intervene each time. Approvals that stall on absence are the most common reason people route around a workflow system and revert to email.
Because organisations change and the workflow must follow. If your team cannot edit routes without the vendor, the system either stops matching how decisions are made or generates a continuous stream of chargeable change requests. Either way the running cost exceeds the licence.
Three real approval scenarios end to end including one where the primary approver is unavailable, plus an SLA report reconciled against manually calculated figures. Define this in the procurement brief so both parties have an objective definition of done.
For a quotation or project review on approval matrix and SLA dashboard planning, Contact Prestige Solutions. Call or WhatsApp +65 8010 2337, or email sales@prestigesolutions.com.sg. You can also browse the Custom Software Management System range or the Prestige Solutions home page first.
Explore our full product range or speak with our technical team for a tailored consultation.