Design a content approval process with one final owner

Five people can review a draft without anyone being responsible for approving it. One checks technical facts, another changes the tone and a third waits for the first two to agree. The document keeps moving, but its status never becomes clear. An approval process needs roles, not simply a list of people copied into an email.

Define what each review is for

Identify the kinds of judgement the content requires. A technical specialist may verify accuracy; a service owner may confirm scope; an editor may check clarity. Some material needs legal or other specialist review. Do not ask every reviewer to comment on everything unless that is genuinely necessary.

Give reviewers a specific request. ‘Please confirm the package inclusions and the stated turnaround’ produces more focused feedback than ‘Any thoughts?’ It also makes it easier to distinguish a factual correction from a personal preference about wording. Both can be considered, but they do not carry the same weight.

Name the final decision-maker

One person should be accountable for resolving the final publishing decision within the organisation's actual authority structure. That does not mean they can overrule legal obligations or ignore specialist facts. It means there is a defined route for resolving conflicting advice and deciding when the draft is ready.

Agree what happens if a reviewer raises an unresolved material concern. The answer may be to narrow the claim, obtain more evidence or delay publication. It should not be to treat silence from everyone else as proof that the concern has disappeared. Keep the issue visible until it has a recorded resolution.

Control the review copy

Use one identifiable draft for the review round and make its status clear. Parallel attachments can produce feedback on different versions. If a reviewer changes text directly, preserve enough history to understand the edit and its reason. Approval of an earlier version should not automatically apply to a substantially revised one.

A hypothetical product announcement might pass factual review, then receive a new claim during a final stylistic edit. That claim needs appropriate checking even though the document already carries an ‘approved’ comment elsewhere. Define which changes require renewed review rather than treating approval as a permanent property of the file.

Close the loop

Set review dates that fit the publication schedule and tell contributors what happens after their feedback. Consolidate comments before asking the writer for revisions. Sending separate, contradictory instructions makes the writer perform an approval role they may not have the authority to hold.

When the final version is approved, record which version that is and who authorised publication. Check the published page against it, including links, captions and headings. Errors can be introduced after copy approval during layout or upload.

Keep the process proportionate. A routine correction may need a lighter route than a major public statement. The purpose is not maximum bureaucracy; it is a clear distinction between review, revision and authority to publish, with no important judgement left to an accidental assumption.