Managers should not have to review every audit to catch the ones that matter most.
For high-volume quality programs, manual review creates an uncomfortable tradeoff. Review too much - managers spend valuable time sorting through records that do not need attention; while reviewing too little - high-risk audits can slip through without the follow-up they deserve.
Implementing a robust quality management system means streamlining this process. Failed audits that go unreviewed are not just a routing problem, but can become a quality risk, a missed coaching opportunity, or an unresolved customer experience issue, which is why approval workflows need to be more precise.
By using the IntouchCheck® system as your core quality management software, multi-location teams can now automatically set up and route audit records for approval based on multiple criteria, such as audit outcome, score, or checker. Instead of relying on a single, one-size-fits-all trigger, admins can create smarter approval workflows that help managers focus on the ones most likely to need review.
Multi-Condition Approval Rules give teams a more flexible way to decide which audit records should be reviewed. Admins can define multiple conditions within one approval routing rule, and any record that matches one or more of those conditions is automatically sent for approval.
That means approval routing can better reflect how quality teams actually work with modern audit management software.
Here are a few examples.
Failed audits are often the clearest signal that something needs attention. They may point to a customer experience issue, a missed operational standard, or a location-level performance gap.
With Multi-Condition Approval Rules, teams can automatically route all failed audits to the appropriate approval queue. Managers do not have to manually search for failures or rely on someone to flag them. The system helps make sure those records are surfaced for review.
This is especially useful for teams that need consistent follow-up on failed audits across locations, regions, or programs.
Not every audit that needs attention is a failure.
An audit may technically pass but still fall below the standard a team wants to maintain. For example, a record with a score of 82% may not trigger a failure outcome, but it could still indicate inconsistent execution, a coaching need, or an emerging quality concern.
With score-based approval conditions, teams can route records above or below a defined score threshold. This gives managers a way to review audits that may not have failed outright but still deserve a closer look.
Instead of treating every “pass” the same, teams can create a more nuanced review process based on performance expectations.
When new checkers or auditors are onboarded, teams often want an extra layer of oversight. Not because something is wrong, but because early review helps ensure consistency, accuracy, and confidence in the process.
With checker or auditor-based conditions, admins can automatically route all audits completed by selected individuals for approval.
This gives managers a practical way to monitor work from newly onboarded team members, provide coaching where needed, and confirm that audits are being completed as expected.
It also reduces the manual work of tracking which records were completed by which checker within your compliance tracking software.
In real quality programs, review decisions are rarely based on one factor.
A team may want to review all failed audits, all audits below a certain score, and all audits completed by a newly onboarded checker. Previously, this type of workflow could require manual triage, separate processes, or overly broad review rules.
With Multi-Condition Approval Rules, those criteria can work together in one approval routing rule.
For example, an admin could configure a rule to route:
If a record matches more than one condition, it is only added to the approval queue once. That keeps the process cleaner for managers while still helping teams capture the records that matter.
The real value of risk-based approval routing is not just that teams can create more conditions. It is that managers can spend less time deciding what to review and more time reviewing what matters.
Instead of manually sorting through audit records, managers can start with a queue that has already been filtered based on the criteria their team cares about.
That means less operational noise, fewer missed exceptions, and more confidence that review time is being spent where it can have the greatest impact.
For many organizations, approval workflows are not just about efficiency. They are also about accountability.
Teams need to know why certain records were reviewed, how high-risk audits were handled, and whether the right issues received follow-up. A manual or inconsistent process can make that difficult to prove.
Multi-Condition Approval Rules help teams create a more structured, repeatable approach. Records are routed based on defined criteria, helping organizations show that review decisions are tied to clear business rules rather than ad hoc judgment.
The payoff is simple: teams can prove they reviewed the right records, for the right reasons, without relying on someone to manually catch every exception.
As audit programs grow, reviewing everything becomes less practical. But reviewing too little can create risk.
Multi-Condition Approval Rules help teams find a better balance by automatically routing the records most likely to need attention. Whether the goal is to review failed audits, monitor low scores, oversee new checkers, or combine multiple risk signals, Intouch gives teams a smarter operations management software solution to manage approval workflows at scale.
Instead of asking managers to review everything, IntouchCX® helps them focus on the audits that matter most.
For more information or help getting started, contact our team at letschat@intouchinsight.com to book a demo, or contact your Customer Success Manager to get started.