How to Build a Technology Review Process That Actually Works

Building a Technology Review Process That Actually Works

Most businesses have some way of reviewing technology decisions before they go ahead. A meeting here, an approval there, maybe a committee that looks at proposals. The problem is that most of these processes do not actually work.

I have walked into organisations where the technology review process is treated as a box-ticking exercise. Project teams dread it. The review board spends time in meetings that go nowhere, looking at decisions that have already been made, producing recommendations that nobody follows up on.

It does not have to be this way. I have built review processes from the ground up that genuinely improve the quality of decisions, keep technology choices consistent, and save organisations real money — without becoming a bureaucratic bottleneck. Here is how.

The Core Problem: Timing and Authority

Most review process failures come down to two issues:

Timing: Reviews happen too late. By the time a proposal reaches the review board, vendors have already been chosen, systems have been purchased, and the budget is committed. At that point, you are not making decisions — you are managing the consequences of decisions already made without your input.

Authority: The review board has no real decision-making power. Its recommendations are treated as advisory. Teams can ignore them. Leadership does not back up the conclusions with actual consequences, so project teams learn they can work around the process entirely.

Fix these two things, and everything else falls into place.

The Checkpoint Structure

I have built review processes around a four-checkpoint approach, applied consistently across every significant technology initiative:

Checkpoint 1 — Early Assessment: Before a project even begins detailed work, you assess it. Does this need formal review? What is the scope? What constraints do we already know about? This checkpoint happens early — sometimes weeks before any detailed work starts. It prevents surprises and gets the right people aligned from the outset.

Checkpoint 2 — Options Review: The project team presents multiple possible approaches. Not a finished proposal — just the realistic options on the table. The review boards job here is to understand the trade-offs, spot risks in each approach, and help the team choose the best direction before they have invested heavily in one path.

Checkpoint 3 — Approval: Once the team has chosen an approach and developed a detailed proposal, they bring it to the review board for sign-off. This is where you confirm the proposal meets your agreed standards, addresses the risks that were identified, and is actually deliverable. Checkpoint 3 is a go or no-go decision.

Checkpoint 4 — Change Review: During delivery, things change. Requirements evolve, new constraints appear, vendors push different approaches. Checkpoint 4 is where you evaluate significant changes — anything that deviates materially from what was originally approved. This prevents the final result from drifting away from the decision your organisation actually made.

The sequence matters. Checkpoint 1 happens first — it is cheap to shape decisions early. Checkpoint 2 sets direction before heavy spending begins. Checkpoint 3 happens before delivery starts. Checkpoint 4 is reactive but protects against scope creep and vendor-driven changes.

What Gets Reviewed: A Clear Documentation Standard

You cannot review what is not written down. Your review process needs a clear standard for what every proposal should include. Without this, every review meeting becomes a different conversation, and important questions get missed.

I have built this around a ten-section structure that works for everything from system migrations to new platform rollouts to data projects:

Executive Summary — What problem are we solving? Why does it matter to the business?
Business Context — Who are the stakeholders? How will we measure success?
Current State — What do we have today? What is working well? What needs to change?
Proposed Solution — What is the recommended approach? How does it work at a high level?
Standards Alignment — How does this proposal fit with your guiding standards and agreed principles?
Security and Compliance — What are the security implications? How are regulatory requirements addressed?
Risk Assessment — What could go wrong? What is the plan if it does?
Cost Analysis — What is the financial impact? Over what timeframe? What are the ongoing costs?
Delivery Approach — How will this actually be built and rolled out? What is the timeline?
Definition of Done — How do we know this is genuinely complete? What are the acceptance criteria?

This structure creates consistency. Everyone reviewing a proposal is looking at the same information in the same format. Discussions stay focused because the documentation is thorough. And when someone questions the decision six months later — and they will — you have the written reasoning to point to.

Defining Done So It Actually Means Something

Done is a dangerous word in business. I have seen projects declare proposals done when they are still missing risk assessments, cost analysis, or security reviews. This creates a false sense of progress and delays real problems from surfacing — often until it is too late to fix them cheaply.

Define what done actually means for your organisation. Here is what I use:

All checkpoint reviews completed and approved
Security review completed, risks documented and accepted
Cost model validated with Finance
Delivery timeline agreed with the team who will actually build it
Success metrics defined and measurable
Stakeholder sign-off documented
Guiding standards confirmed, or any deviations explicitly documented and approved
Risk register updated
Procurement implications identified (if applicable)

When a proposal meets every one of these criteria, it is genuinely done. The team knows what they are building. The organisation knows what it is paying for. The review board knows exactly what they approved and why.

The Meeting Rhythm

I run review boards on a regular schedule — typically every two weeks. This creates predictability. Teams know when their proposals will be reviewed. Leadership knows when decisions will be made. Nobody is left waiting indefinitely for an answer.

The fortnightly rhythm also creates healthy pressure. Projects cannot delay reviews endlessly — the next checkpoint happens in two weeks whether they are ready or not. This encourages teams to prepare properly and keeps momentum going.

In larger organisations, I also run team-level review sessions alongside the main board. Large businesses need multiple layers of review. Individual teams get faster, more focused feedback on day-to-day decisions, while the main review board handles the bigger cross-cutting decisions that affect the whole organisation.

Enforcement: Where Most Review Processes Fail

You can design the perfect review process with excellent documentation standards. If you do not enforce it, none of it matters.

Enforcement does not mean punishment. It means clear consequences:

Projects that bypass the review process do not get budget approval
System changes that have not passed Checkpoint 3 do not get implemented
Release processes automatically block changes that violate your agreed standards
Every technology decision has documented ownership and clear accountability

I have seen organisations where review board recommendations were routinely ignored, but projects still got funded and delivered regardless. That review board became a speed bump with no real authority. The moment leadership said nothing gets deployed without review board sign-off, behaviour changed overnight.

What Success Looks Like

A well-functioning review process creates measurable outcomes that matter to the business:

Faster delivery — Teams know what is expected before they start. Rework and wasted effort decrease significantly.
Better decisions — Multiple perspectives and structured review genuinely improve the quality of technology choices.
Fewer hidden costs — Proposals are reviewed for long-term sustainability, not just whether they solve today problem. This reduces the accumulated shortcuts that create expensive problems later.
Vendor accountability — Vendors adjust their proposals to fit your standards instead of pushing whatever solution is most convenient or profitable for them.
Organisational memory — Documentation becomes institutional knowledge. Future teams learn from past decisions instead of repeating the same mistakes.
Cost control — Expensive mistakes get caught before they become expensive. Alternative approaches are properly evaluated before committing to one path.

Starting From Scratch

If you are building a technology review process for the first time, here is where to start:

Start with your standards. What does good look like for technology decisions in your organisation? Write these down first. Everything else flows from having clear guiding standards that everyone understands.
Define your checkpoints. Adapt the four-checkpoint model to fit your business. When do decisions actually need to be made? Where are the natural decision points in how your organisation runs projects?
Create documentation templates. The ten-section structure I described above is a strong starting point, but tailor it to what matters most in your industry and your business.
Pilot with one project. Do not try to implement this across every project at once. Pick one significant initiative, work through the checkpoints, and learn from the experience before scaling.
Get executive backing. The review process only works if leadership enforces it. You need sponsorship from someone senior enough to say no to projects that try to skip the process.
Refine continuously. Your first version will not be perfect. Review what worked, what did not, and adjust before you scale it across the organisation.

Technology Review as a Strategic Advantage

Most organisations treat technology governance as a necessary evil — something that slows things down. The best organisations see it as an advantage. A clear review process lets teams move faster because they know exactly what is expected. Documented reasoning prevents costly rework. Consistent decisions make your technology estate simpler and cheaper to maintain.

Your technology review process is not a gatekeeping function. It is a decision-making framework that improves outcomes across the board. Build it properly, enforce it consistently, and over time it becomes invisible — teams naturally make better decisions because they are operating within a clear, well-understood structure.

That is when you know it is working.