An approval workflow in Excel can work well when the process is simple, low risk and owned by a small group. The trouble starts when the workbook becomes the place where several people submit, approve, reject, amend and report on requests.
At that point, the question is not whether Excel can hold a Status column. It is whether a simple approval register can still provide the control the process needs.
Can the business reliably answer:
- Who submitted this?
- Who approved it?
- When did the decision happen?
- Which version was approved?
- What happens if the approver is away?
- Can the requester edit the record after approval?
- Can different users see different information?
- Can management report on the live approval queue without rebuilding it manually?
If those questions matter, the spreadsheet is starting to behave like an application.
Interactive example
From approval tracker rows to accountable decisions
A hypothetical demonstration of turning an Excel approval tracker into a managed request-and-decision workflow.
- Less chasing for the current owner
- Clearer auditability
- Faster visibility of overdue requests
Demonstration only. Sample data stays separate from any real customer system.
The simplest workable Excel approval structure
For a lightweight process, keep the workbook disciplined.
Use one structured table with fields such as:
- Request ID
- Requester
- Request date
- Category
- Amount or value
- Status
- Approver
- Decision date
- Decision notes
Keep one row per request. Avoid copying requests into separate Approved and Rejected tabs because that creates multiple versions of the same record.
For a straightforward, low-risk and low-volume workflow, Power Automate may be used to notify an approver and write a decision back to the same request record. The workbook should remain the single source for that simple process.
This can be perfectly adequate where the approval path is clear and exceptions are rare.
The design limits of a simple Excel approval register
An Excel approval process becomes difficult to operate when its design has to represent more than a single request, a single decision and a small number of users.
Multiple approval stages
A purchase may need a line manager, finance and a director depending on value. Once routing changes by amount, department or request type, the rules become harder to see, test and maintain in a workbook.
Different permissions
The requester may need to create and view their own request. Finance may need to see values. Managers may need approval rights. Administrators may need configuration access.
File-level permissions do not map neatly to those roles.
Audit requirements
A status cell saying Approved is not the same as a controlled approval event. If the business needs to demonstrate who approved a particular version and when, stronger auditability becomes valuable.
Concurrent use
When several people are editing the same operational workbook, manual changes, sorting, copied rows and version confusion can undermine the process even if the formulas are correct.
Repeated reporting
If someone spends time every week rebuilding an approvals report or reconciling the spreadsheet with messages and other records, the simple register is carrying more operational responsibility than it was designed for.
Excel plus Power Automate versus a managed app
| Need | Excel plus Power Automate | Managed web app |
|---|---|---|
| Simple single-stage approval | Often suitable | More than needed in some cases |
| Several roles | Possible, but awkward | Built around role permissions |
| Multi-stage routing | Increasingly complex | Explicit workflow rules |
| Approval history | Spread across workbook and flow history | Stored against the record |
| Mobile use | Possible | Can be designed for the task |
| Reporting | Often workbook-based | Live application data |
| Ongoing maintenance | Workbook, flow and connector upkeep | Managed service approach |
The right answer is not "replace Excel as soon as there is an approval". The right answer is to recognise when the approval register needs controls that are difficult to provide reliably in a workbook.
A good replacement does not copy the approval sheet
A proper replacement should simplify the work.
Instead of asking users to find the right row and edit the right status, the application can provide:
Submit request → validate → assign approver → approve or reject → record decision → notify next person → report
Each action can be tied to a user and timestamp.
That makes the process easier for ordinary users and easier for management to control.
One user can still justify an upgrade
Do not use team size alone as the deciding factor.
A single employee may spend many hours each week running a repetitive approval or checking process through Excel. If the workflow is important and the manual effort is high, a focused application may still make commercial sense.
The better test is whether the spreadsheet is being used for flexible analysis or for a repeated operational process.
What to do if your Excel approval process is becoming fragile
Spreadsheet Upgrade starts with a free fit check. This is the normal no-obligation first step: you describe the process, who uses it, what is frustrating and what you want to improve.
If it looks worth progressing, you can discuss whether a later Spreadsheet Assessment is appropriate. The assessment is £295 excluding VAT in the selected currency and considers the workbook, approval rules, users, permissions and edge cases before a replacement is scoped.
See the current details on the pricing page.
If your approval register needs role-based access, clear workflow rules, reliable decision records or live reporting, start with the free fit check.