Governance Forums — Template

Version: 1.1.0 | Licence: CC BY 4.0

Define only the forums that can make a decision or resolve an impediment, and give each a charter. Accountability by activity is covered in the RACI matrix.

Related: Executive Playbook, Sections 2 and 4, and Technology Strategy & Execution Governance, Section 5.

How decisions move through governance

The diagram shows a typical escalation and decision path. It is illustrative, not a mandatory hierarchy: delegated authority, materiality and the organisation's formal delegations determine the actual route. A decision should be taken at the lowest level with the authority and competence to make it; unresolved matters or matters outside tolerance move to the appropriate higher authority.

flowchart TD
    A["Issue, proposal or decision need"] --> B{"Within approved mandate and tolerance?"}
    B -->|Yes| C["Initiative review / Initiative lead"]
    C --> D["Record decision, action and evidence"]
    B -->|No| E{"What kind of authority is needed?"}
    E -->|Portfolio priority, capacity or funding| F["Portfolio review / Portfolio authority"]
    E -->|Strategic direction or reserved matter| G["Executive strategy review / Executive leadership"]
    E -->|Material design or assurance exception| H["Design / assurance review"]
    F --> I["Decision, conditions or further escalation"]
    G --> I
    H --> I
    I --> J["Update mandate, decision log and owners"]
    J --> K["Monitor delivery, tolerances and outcomes"]
    K -->|New evidence or trigger| A
    D --> K

Benefits review validates adoption and outcome evidence at the agreed interval; it informs portfolio and executive decisions but does not replace the accountable Benefit owner.

Decision classes and authority

Decision class	Examples	Accountable decision-maker	Required input
Strategic direction	Outcomes, principles, risk appetite	Executive leadership	Strategy, finance, risk and affected business leaders
Portfolio allocation	Start, stop, defer, accelerate; funding envelope	Portfolio authority	Executive sponsor, Initiative leads, finance and capacity owners
Initiative mandate	Scope, outcome, owner, tolerances	Executive sponsor	Service owner, Initiative lead, architecture, assurance
Material design exception	Deviation from agreed principles or material risk	Architecture / assurance authority or delegated executive	Architecture, security, operations, delivery
Delivery correction	Recovery actions within approved scope and tolerance	Initiative lead	Team evidence and impacted owners
Benefit acceptance	Confirm outcome evidence and next action	Benefit owner; sponsor accountable for response	Service data, finance, users

Publish monetary and schedule limits, risk thresholds and matters reserved for senior decision.

Minimum viable forums

Forum	Cadence (illustrative)	Purpose and decisions	Core inputs	Outputs
Executive strategy review	Quarterly or on trigger	Confirm outcomes, direction, risk appetite, major trade-offs	Outcome trends, strategic changes, material exceptions	Direction, reserved decisions, mandate changes
Portfolio review	Monthly	Balance investment, capacity and dependencies; start / stop / defer / accelerate	Initiative canvases, forecasts, capacity, risks, benefit evidence	Prioritised portfolio, decisions, owners and dates
Initiative review	Fortnightly or monthly, proportionate to risk	Correct delivery within mandate; escalate tolerance breaches	Milestones, cost forecast, RAID, dependencies, quality and adoption	Actions, decisions, escalation requests
Design / assurance review	At material decisions and changes	Challenge architecture, security, privacy, resilience, operability	Options, impact, exceptions, specialist assessments	Approval, conditions, exception or escalation
Benefits review	At agreed post-change intervals	Validate adoption and outcome evidence; adapt or stop	Baseline, actuals, attribution limits, user feedback	Benefit action, owner, next measurement

Cadence follows the decision need, not a calendar.

Forum charter template

Complete one charter for each forum. State decision rights precisely enough that participants can distinguish a decision the forum may take from a recommendation or matter that must be escalated. Adapt the fields to the organisation's scale; do not create a forum where a clear owner and a direct escalation route would suffice.

Field	Entry
Forum name and purpose
Remit and decisions it is authorised to make
Delegated authority and limits (financial, scope, schedule, risk and other thresholds)
Matters explicitly reserved for another authority
Chair and deputy (if applicable)
Membership, required roles and standing attendees
Quorum and rules for a valid decision
Standing inputs and who prepares them
Expected outputs and action ownership
Cadence and event-based convening triggers
Decision log location and decision-log owner
Escalation triggers (including tolerance breaches and unresolved conflicts)
Escalation destination and latest safe decision date
Charter owner
Charter review date and effectiveness check

Operating and review checks

Before approving the charter, confirm that: - each decision type has one clearly identified accountable decision-maker; - delegated limits and reserved matters are consistent with the organisation's wider delegations; - quorum includes the roles needed to make the decisions within the forum's remit; - papers arrive early enough to support evidence-based decisions; - decisions, conditions, dissent, actions, owners and due dates are recorded; - escalation identifies both the receiving authority and the latest safe decision date.

At the charter review, assess whether the forum is making the decisions it was established to make, within the required timescales, without duplicating another forum. Retire or redesign forums that do not add clear decision value.

For accountability by activity, use the RACI matrix. One person may hold several roles in a small organisation, but accountability for content, access, outcomes and operation should remain explicit.

Template for adaptation. Independent professional reference material.