Order is a design decision
When a document needs more than one signer, you have to decide how it routes. Get this wrong and you either slow the deal down or let people sign in an order that breaks your approval logic.
The three routing patterns
- Sequential. Signer A must finish before Signer B is notified. Use this when later signers need to see earlier signatures — a manager approving after an employee, or a counter-signature on an executed agreement.
- Parallel. Everyone gets it at once and signs independently. Fastest path when order doesn't matter — for example, several board members acknowledging the same resolution.
- Hybrid. Groups in sequence, parallel within a group. The legal team signs in parallel, then it routes to the CFO. This handles most real-world deals.
Roles beyond "signer"
Routing isn't only about signers. A robust workflow distinguishes:
- Signers who must apply a signature
- Approvers who must consent but not sign
- CC / observers who receive a copy but take no action
- In-person signers handed off at a kiosk or tablet — flag a recipient as in-person and they're never emailed; the sender mints an on-demand signing link and hands over their own phone or tablet, capturing a legally-binding signature on the spot with no email or signer account
Reminders and expiration
A workflow that stalls is worse than no workflow. Build in:
- Automatic reminders on a cadence (e.g., day 2, day 5, day 9)
- A hard expiration so stale documents can't be signed weeks later
- Visible status so the sender knows exactly who is holding things up
Designing for the unhappy path
Most workflow design assumes everyone signs. The real test is the decline. When a signer declines or a deal dies, the workflow should stop cleanly, notify the sender, and leave an audit record of why. A routing system that only handles the happy path will let you down on exactly the agreements that matter most.