BPMflow · Process automation with EAFlow
From scattered workto the outcome you need.
Turn emails, spreadsheets and legacy applications into processes with clear ownership, traceable decisions and a defined outcome. BPMflow coordinates work across teams, systems and external participants on EAFlow’s business context.
One concrete process. On the systems you already use.
- Spreadsheet
- System
Reviewed with the people taking part
- Purchasing — active participant
- Receiving
- Supplier
- Owner
- Purchasing
- Next action
- Review the discrepancy with receiving
- Evidence
- Invoice and goods-receipt record
- Clear ownership
- Traceable decisions
- Defined outcomes
- Category
- Automation capability of the EAFlow platform.
- When to use
- When a case crosses teams, systems and third parties, and the outcome has to be confirmed.
- Users
- Process owners, operations, finance, quality, shared services and IT.
- Output
- Cases with an owner, a status, a deadline, evidence and a confirmed closure.
A concrete example
An invoice that does not match what was received.
An invoice with a discrepancy, an investment request or a negotiated exit move through several teams, several tools and almost always through someone outside your organization. The expensive part is not the work: it is knowing who has to act now, what is missing to close, and whether what was agreed actually happened. This is how that same case looks once the path is ordered.
-
Identify the discrepancy
An invoice arrives for an amount that does not match the recorded goods receipt. A case opens with the discrepancy identified, and the document and the receipt record stay visible to everyone taking part.
-
Assign the review
The case is assigned under the rule you agreed: purchasing, warehouse or accounts payable. Whoever receives it sees what is expected of them, by when, and what is still missing to move forward.
-
Resolve with evidence
Your supplier enters the case, not your internal operation: they see what is asked of them, attach the supporting document and answer the observation. If the adjustment needs authorization by amount or by policy, it is requested from whoever holds it and recorded with author and date.
-
Record the agreed closure
The resolution is documented with the support behind it: discrepancy cleared or reasoned rejection. That is the closure of this path, and that is how the file stands for whoever reviews it later.
Handing over is not closing.
A routed case changed owner, not outcome. A return asks for a correction; an escalation raises the priority. All three are intermediate statuses. The outcome is what you agreed at the start, and it is recorded with the evidence behind it and with whoever or whatever system confirms it.
Resolving is not paying.
In this example the closure is the documented resolution of the exception. Releasing the invoice, scheduling it and paying it are separate decisions, taken by whoever holds that authority, and confirmed in the financial system.
Where it applies
Start with what is hard to resolve today.
Explore processes by business area and open a solution page for its scope and details. Each process has an agreed outcome, supporting evidence and a person or system responsible for confirming it.
Suppliers and procurement
What comes in and out through your supply chain, with the third party taking part inside the case.
-
Invoice exceptions
Differences in purchase order, receipt, price or documentation. The path closes at the documented resolution; releasing, scheduling and payment follow their own route in the financial system.
See Invoice Exception Resolution → -
Supplier onboarding and changes
Documents, review and a decision with an explicit result. A return to complete documentation leaves the review pending: it is neither a final rejection nor a confirmed approval.
See Supplier Onboarding and Changes → -
Supplier request handling
The desk where your supplier arrives, with a traceable answer to what they ask and without losing the thread across emails.
See Supplier Service Desk for Shared Services → -
Contractors and work closeout
Contractor clearance, evidence of the work performed and the decision of whoever receives it: formal acceptance or reasoned rejection. The closure is confirmed by the person accountable for the acceptance, not by the contractor.
See Contractors, Assets and Interventions →
Decisions and money
Decisions that commit budget, and conditions someone has to follow afterwards.
-
Financial and investment decisions
Reviews, conditions and follow-up on what was approved. A decision approved with conditions leaves owners and due dates live until those conditions are met.
See Financial Decision & Investment Governance → -
CAPEX/OPEX budget approval
The entry point of the financial decision: request, review and approval with an explicit scope and amount.
See Finance Shared Services — Budget Approval Workflow → -
Corporate payments and reconciliation
Instruction, approval, submission through the agreed channel, rejection or return, and reconciliation against the actual bank movement. An approval that has not yet been posted in the system of record is not an executed payment, and a change of payee bank details is verified as a separate event.
See Corporate Payments and Reconciliation → -
Trade claims and deductions
The financial resolution of a difference: evidence, analysis and negotiation ending in an adjustment confirmed with the counterparty, or in a reasoned rejection. Both outcomes are a valid closure.
See Trade Claims and Deductions → -
Demand and portfolio governance
Initiative requests, dependencies and priorities with the criteria on record, a decision by the appropriate authority, and follow-up on open commitments.
See Demand and Portfolio Governance → -
Project handover to operations
Acceptance conditions, current documentation and operational responsibilities. The receiving team records its decision, any open items and who confirms their resolution.
See Project Handover to Operations →
Customers and operations
What has to be recovered, coordinated or reviewed to keep the service running.
-
Order and logistics exceptions
Operational recovery of the order or the delivery, with confirmation of what was actually executed. If a financial difference is also left open, that part is resolved as a claim, not here.
See Order and Logistics Exceptions → -
Claims and service coordination
Adjusters, workshops and external providers coordinated inside one case, with a confirmed answer to whoever raised it.
See Claims and Service Coordination → -
Customer onboarding and review
Onboarding and reviews triggered by expiry or by change, with specialist verifiers when the case calls for them. A review can end in approval, restriction, suspension or termination, according to the rules you defined.
See Customer Onboarding and Review → -
Real estate sales operations
Inquiries, qualification, properties, visits and follow-up connected to the CRM. People remain involved in negotiation, exceptions and closing.
See Real Estate Sales Operations → -
Property handover and aftersales
Pre-handover inspection, the walk-through with the buyer, items assessed with an owner and a turnaround, and a warranty that keeps running by trade. Taking possession with items outstanding is still a handover: what stays open is each item, until the sign-off of whoever is entitled to give it after the re-inspection, or until it is settled as not covered, with the grounds on record.
See Property Handover and Aftersales →
Quality, risk and change
Findings, controls, changes and recovery, with evidence connected to the process and its owners.
-
Nonconformities and corrective actions
Finding, analysis and decision. It can close with a reasoned conclusion and no corrective action; when there is an action, its effectiveness is verified before closing.
See Quality Document Management for CPG → -
Domain investigations
Quality, people, risk or a claim under review: each domain investigates under its own rules of access, decision and closure. The conclusion put forward by the named investigator is not yet the resolution: the authorized owner decides, and effectiveness is verified afterwards where the domain calls for it.
See Domain Investigations and Nonconformities → -
Industrial change (MOC)
Request, triage, risk assessment, committee, implementation, the PSSR readiness review and start-up authorization, with closure and an auditable record. Start-up authorization remains a human decision on record, with the status of every open condition in view.
See Oil & Gas Industrial MOC → -
Continuity and verified recovery
Critical dependencies, drills and test results. Here the closure is confirmed by the authorized owner who ran the test, because the result does not live in a transactional system.
See Operational Continuity & Resilience → -
Risks, controls and action plans
Tests, findings and remediation commitments connected to the process and control, with a named owner, a due date and evidence of the outcome.
See Risk & Control Assurance →
People and healthcare
People events and administrative processes that need coordination across teams and sites.
-
Employee lifecycle operations
Onboarding, mobility, role changes and exits coordinated across HR, line managers, IT and facilities, with tasks and confirmations agreed for each event.
See Employee Lifecycle Operations → -
Negotiated separations and sensitive cases
People cases with restricted access and evidence separated by legal entity and by country.
See HR Shared Services — Negotiated Offboarding → -
Healthcare administrative operations
Administrative onboarding, suppliers, internal services and investment decisions coordinated across sites. Each process keeps its own owners, decisions and agreed outcome.
See Healthcare Administrative Operations →
Reporting and modernization
From a report finding or a departmental application to work the organization can sustain.
-
From reporting to action
A deviation flagged by a report becomes a review with a named owner and a reasoned decision; where action is needed, it is followed through to confirmation.
See From Reporting to Action → -
Departmental application modernization
Rules in spreadsheets, departmental databases or AI-built prototypes are reviewed to agree the forms, tasks, integrations and operating model the team needs.
See Departmental Application Modernization →
How it works with EAFlow
Four pieces, one case.
BPMflow does not work alone. These are the four pieces of the platform and what each one contributes to the invoice in the example.
-
EAFlow’s context
The Operational Graph connects processes, owners, rules, systems, data, controls and evidence. From there come who has to act on that invoice, which tolerance rule applies and which version of the document is current today.
See the Operational Graph → -
The accelerators
Structures, patterns and reusable experience from a recognizable sector problem: objects, statuses, participants and criteria that are adapted to your operation and validated with your owners before they are used.
See solutions → -
BPMflow
Carries the path: cases, tasks, assignment, approvals, deadlines, exceptions, evidence and integrations, from approved definitions in the graph. The file is built while the case moves, not afterwards.
-
Max
Explains what state a case is in, shows the evidence and the rules that apply, answers questions about the file and proposes the next step within what is authorized. Approval stays human.
See Max in the platform context →
BPMflow does not replace the systems that already hold the transaction, the official document or the accounting record: it coordinates the work around them, and approval stays with the accountable person.
How to start and sustain it
You start with a process, not with an architecture project.
The first path is agreed, configured and tested with the people who will operate it. The context it leaves behind serves the next one.
-
Pick the process
One concrete process, with a recognizable problem and an owner to carry it.
-
Agree the outcome
What finishing means, who or which system confirms it and what evidence remains.
-
Recover context and rules
Owners, statuses, criteria and current documents, validated with the people who use them.
-
Configure and integrate
Read and confirmation points are agreed with each team that administers a system.
-
Test the exceptions
With real cases and with the paths that fail, alongside the people who will operate it.
-
Move it into the operation
Your team runs it and the context stays available for the next process.
Where the material comes from
Many of these paths start today in Microsoft Excel spreadsheets, Microsoft Access databases, flows assembled in SharePoint and reporting in Power BI. That material is a useful input: it holds real rules someone maintained for years, and it is validated with the owners before it is used. Reporting keeps doing its job: showing the deviation. From there begins the path BPMflow carries, where the deviation detected becomes a case with an owner, a decision, an action and a recorded closure.
The same goes for your legacy applications and for the prototypes your team put together with AI: they show what the business needs and how it solved that with what it had at hand. They are read as a source of rules and of the path itself. There is no automatic hand-over: what is kept, what is rewritten and what is retired is agreed case by case with the team that maintains it today.
What is agreed before operating
- Scope
- Agreed per process, not per platform: which cases are in, what stays out at this stage and how far the path goes. That limit is written down before anything is configured.
- Configuration and integration
- With each team that administers a system, what is read, what is written and what confirms the closure are defined. Integration points are agreed one by one; they are not assumed ready in advance.
- Exception testing
- The straightforward path is tested and, above all, the ones that fail: the missing datum, the third party that never answers, the authorization that expires. With real cases and with the people who will operate it.
- Operation, maintenance and recovery
- Who runs the path, who updates the rules when they change and what happens when a system does not respond. The accountable people are named before the path is handed to the team.
Frequently asked questions
What we usually get asked before starting.
Is BPMflow a process modeling tool?
It is not a diagram editor that someone later translates into a system. The path runs from approved definitions in the graph.
Do you need the architecture documented before starting?
No. The minimum context your first process needs is built, and it stays available for the next one. Documenting enterprise architecture is separate work, and it is offered as its own solution.
See Enterprise Architecture Governance →What about the processes that run in a spreadsheet today?
That spreadsheet usually holds real rules and tested criteria: it comes in as an input and is validated with the owners. Not everything in it is still current.
Does a low case volume justify ordering the path?
It depends less on volume than on the cost of the error, the criticality of the process and the decision work each case demands.
How do you know an action actually happened?
Because the closure is confirmed by whoever holds that authority: the system where the fact occurs, or the authorized owner when the outcome does not live in a system. Until that confirmation arrives, the case stays open.
Scope conversation
Tell us which process you need to resolve.
Write to us with where the process starts, who takes part inside and outside your organization, and what outcome you need at the end. With that we will come back on whether BPMflow fits and what it would take to evaluate it.
Or straight to hello@eaflow.io