Testing whether your governance works in practice

Updated 17 October 2026

Take the last investment decision that returned to the same meeting twice. Ask everyone involved to describe who could approve it, whose advice was required and what information was missing.

If their answers differ, the governance documents have an implementation problem. The policy may be ambiguous, poorly understood or inconsistent with another set of responsibilities. The remedy depends on which of those explanations is correct.

A practical review starts with the decision history. It then checks whether the formal arrangements would help people handle the next similar case.

Use a decision people recognise

Choose a recent example involving more than one entity or committee. A capital expenditure proposal, a major supplier appointment or a change to an approved programme can be useful because the consequences are tangible.

Reconstruct what happened. Record the dates on which information was requested, the reason for each referral and the authority cited. Separate elapsed waiting time from time reasonably needed for analysis or challenge.

Invite people to identify where they were uncertain. If the review begins by assigning blame, participants have a strong reason to defend the existing process rather than explain it.

Check authority and consultation separately

An illustrative group purchase may require subsidiary management to prepare the proposal, group finance to assess funding and a board to approve it within the applicable arrangements. Those contributions are different. A person consulted for expertise does not necessarily have approval authority.

Write down who proposes, who advises and who decides. Check the answer against the organisation's governing documents, applicable requirements and formal delegations. Any inconsistency needs the appropriate specialist review and authorised amendment.

Also specify when an approval returns for reconsideration. A material change in price, scope or risk may require a new decision even when the project name stays the same.

Make escalation useful

Escalation should bring a matter to someone able to act. Define the conditions that trigger it, the information required and the expected response time. Material risks and control failures need a clear route upwards even when the operational team cannot propose a complete solution.

Review whether thresholds reflect the decisions being made. A financial limit alone may miss a small contract with significant access to sensitive information or a commitment that affects several entities.

Exceptions should be visible and reviewed. Repeated exceptions can indicate that the rules need updating or that people are avoiding an important control. Those possibilities call for different responses.

Test the revised rules before closing the review

Use the amended arrangements to walk through the original decision and a less straightforward variation. Can participants identify the approver and required evidence without relying on the person who wrote the policy?

Then follow a small sample of actual decisions. Look for avoidable referrals, decisions taken outside authority and unresolved actions. Speed matters, but so does the quality and legitimacy of the decision.

Close the review when the organisation can demonstrate how the rules work. Circulating a revised manual is one step towards that result.