Map decisions rather than job titles
List the decisions needed to move the campaign forward: confirm site measurements, approve wording, approve artwork, accept technical specification, authorise external spend, arrange access and confirm installation. A person who coordinates the work may not have authority to approve all of it. Record a named decision-maker for each gate and a deputy for absences.
Make review windows visible
For each decision, show the information required, target response date and consequence of a delay. Invite reviewers to the exact version they are judging. A comment such as “looks fine” should not silently become spend approval or acceptance of a fixing method. If two departments provide contradictory wording, ask the content owner to resolve it before the designer makes another proof.
Keep the map useful when people change
At handover, review the pending decisions with the incoming colleague and confirm their authority. Remove access that is no longer needed while keeping organisation records. In a fictional programme, a regional manager can confirm local access while the central brand owner controls the template. Their decisions can be recorded separately, so a local delivery change does not reopen the approved brand design. Export the map with the final job pack.
Worked example — fictional
A fictional agency coordinates graphics for two retail regions. The central marketing owner approves the message and locked brand elements. Regional managers confirm quantities and site access. The designer prepares proofs but cannot authorise supplier expenditure. The production provider accepts technical requirements. The finance owner approves the external commitment. When a local manager requests an extra panel, the agency coordinator records the change, asks the region to confirm its measurement and routes the resulting quote to the finance owner. The brand approval is revisited only if the artwork changes. This map prevents a fast regional reply from being misread as authority over the whole job. It also makes the absent finance owner’s deputy a practical dependency, instead of discovering that absence after production is due to start.
Decision checkpoints
- Measurements: ask who is accountable for the site facts and who may accept an estimate.
- Content and visual decisions: identify the final owner when reviewers provide contradictory feedback.
- Technical release: record the provider’s acceptance and any conditions still requiring an answer.
- External commitment: verify the actual authority of the person accepting scope and expenditure.
Common pitfalls
- Copying a whole department into an email creates recipients, not an accountable decision-maker.
- A supplier’s technical acceptance does not automatically establish the buyer’s approval of additional work.
- A colleague’s departure needs an access review as well as a replacement name on the task.
Use it on your next job
Create the approval register from the download library. Assign named owners to the four decision scopes and add due dates to your own campaign plan. Before inviting a reviewer, state what they are being asked to decide. At the next handover, review pending decisions together and record the incoming person’s accepted responsibility.
Take this to the next job
- List decision gates
- Name one accountable owner per gate
- Record deputies and due dates
- Keep technical and commercial decisions separate
- Review access at handover
