The work and the outcome
Missing serials and invoice references create email loops; duplicate returns are hard to see.
ERP RMA draft links invoice lines, reason and reviewer; issued RMA only after approval.
- Business function
- Returns operations
- Typical sponsor
- Customer operations director
- Working role
- Returns coordinator
- Unit of work
- return request
How this work typically happens today
- Locate original invoice
- Capture item, quantity and reason
- Check policy and prior returns
- Approve RMA and communicate instructions
How the workflow could run
AI helps prepare and coordinate the work. The review rules define what can proceed and where an accountable person decides.
- 01
Receive the trigger
Customer requests return of a delivered item.
- 02
Bring the right context together
Invoice-return lineage and versioned return policies by product/customer.
- 03
Prepare the work with AI
Extract requested lines; match original sale; check return window and already-returned quantities; draft RMA and missing-data request.
- 04
Review and authorize
Approve eligibility exceptions, hazardous-item instructions and authorization; never let AI determine safety handling.
- 05
Confirm the outcome
ERP RMA draft links invoice lines, reason and reviewer; issued RMA only after approval.
The review experience
Return request form with invoice match and policy exception badges.
Information and systems
Systems to connect
- CRM
- ERP returns
- invoice archive
Context the workflow needs
Invoice/line, item/serial/lot, quantity, purchase date, reason, photos, policy version, prior returned quantity.
What needs to be in place
Accessible invoices, return policy owner, serial/lot records and supported RMA API.
Human decisions and exceptions
Where people decide
Approve eligibility exceptions, hazardous-item instructions and authorization; never let AI determine safety handling.
The approval boundary
Returns owner authorizes RMA; safety-sensitive goods route to qualified handler.
If something is missing or fails
Unknown sale, serial mismatch or unclear hazard status becomes manual returns review.
What to measure
- Complete first-review requests / received requests
- duplicate authorizations count
- minutes / return request
What to check during evaluation
Evaluate duplicate requests, wrong invoices and expired windows; track reviewer correction rate.
Establish today’s baseline and agree acceptance criteria for representative cases, including exceptions. Count review, rework and operating costs alongside the benefit. Time released creates capacity; a financial saving needs a separate mechanism.
Explore it in your business
What drives return email loops? Request policy versions, return reasons, invoice links and approval override examples.
Bring the people who own the process, permitted examples and a clear finish line. Together, we can establish the scope, connections and evidence needed for a useful first deployment.