Automations exist but failures remain buried in email and nobody knows what needs intervention.
First workflow from A$4,900 ex GST, with 12 months of support for the agreed implementation. Scope and pricing →
Every alert has an actionable reason, owner and closure check. Deduplicate repeated failures; no self-closing without evidence. Separate critical incidents from routine exceptions.
Unavailable API; missing data; recurring failure; unresolved handoff; owner absent.
Uncertain inputs go to an assigned owner with the source, reason and next decision. Failed writes are reconciled before retrying, so a recovered connection does not create a duplicate order, payment or stock movement.
Aged exceptions; resolution time; alerts/actionable issue; repeated failures; owner interruption time.
Sample representative work before the build, including difficult cases. Compare the same task mix after launch; include review, exception handling and system upkeep in the time used.
Map the first input, the final accepted result and who can approve it. Agree source systems, read/write access, rules, exception ownership and acceptance checks. Run representative normal, failure and recovery cases before expanding across teams.
Role-based access, separation of preparation and approval, versioned rules, an action history, duplicate protection, reconciliation, alerts and a named recovery owner. Private deployment or customer-controlled infrastructure can be scoped where needed. These are design requirements to validate, not an unsupported promise of perfect source data or regulatory compliance.
Specific answers to help you judge the fit, the information needed and the decisions your team keeps.
Each defined exception needs a reason, an owner, a due time and an action that can move it towards resolution. The queue should link the supporting records and show what is blocked. A chart of errors without an accountable next step would not fulfil this design.
Choose a small set of recurring operational failures with a clear commercial consequence, such as unallocated orders or invoices awaiting evidence. Agree their detection and closure rules with the team that fixes them. Avoid importing every technical warning before anyone knows which ones require business action.
Where the connected system and permissions allow it, the queue can offer a bounded action such as requesting missing data or retrying a verified failed handoff. Consequential changes need the relevant approval. Otherwise, it links the responsible tool and records the outcome once the action is confirmed.
Repeated events should update one related case where appropriate, rather than generate an endless stack of notifications. Define escalation and a backup owner for overdue or unassigned work. Acknowledging an alert should not reset the business deadline or hide an unresolved dependency.
Agree the evidence for each exception type: an accepted stock update, completed allocation or approved evidence pack, for example. Closing the alert requires that outcome or an authorised documented decision. Measure aged cases, resolution time and repeat causes, not just how many notifications were dismissed.
Match supplier invoices against approved purchase orders and actual goods receipts. Apply agreed quantity and price tolerances, check duplicates and assign mismatches before accounting entry.
Finance controller / purchasing managerWorkflow designSee pipeline, exceptions & controls →Purchasing decisions, receipts and invoices need a shared record of what was approved and what actually arrived.
Procurement / financeWorkflow designSee pipeline, exceptions & controls →A regional report is useful only when each site can see and resolve the stock, staffing or service exceptions behind it.
Regional operations managerWorkflow designSee pipeline, exceptions & controls →