Approval Workflow Mapper

What it is

An approval workflow mapper is a visual and written framework that documents exactly who needs to review content, in what order, and according to what criteria. It removes ambiguity from the approval process by establishing clear sign-off authority, decision criteria, and escalation paths.

Rather than leaving approvals to chance or unclear email chains, this template creates a documented process that everyone understands. It’s particularly useful for organisations with multiple stakeholder groups, complex legal requirements, or high-stakes communications where sign-off accountability matters.

When to use it

Use this template when:

Setting up approval processes for new communication types
Multiple stakeholders need to review content
You want to reduce approval bottlenecks and delays
Legal, compliance, or brand review is required
You need to clarify decision-making authority
Escalation procedures need documenting

Don’t use this template if:

Content requires minimal or single-person approval
Workflows change too frequently to document effectively
You only need one-off approval decisions

Inputs needed

Before starting, gather:

Names and roles of all approval stakeholders
Their areas of responsibility (legal, brand, compliance, etc.)
Typical review turnaround times for each person
Any hard deadlines or time constraints
Escalation triggers (e.g., budget over £50k, regulatory impact)
Whether reviews can happen in parallel or must be sequential

The template

Approval Workflow Structure

Communication type: [e.g., Press release, Customer notice, Internal announcement]

Total approval time: [e.g., 48 hours]

Stage	Reviewer role	Responsibility	Turnaround	Pass criteria	Escalation trigger
1	[Role]	[What they review]	[e.g., 4 hours]	[What needs approval]	[When to escalate]
2	[Role]	[What they review]	[e.g., 6 hours]	[What needs approval]	[When to escalate]
3	[Role]	[What they review]	[e.g., 2 hours]	[What needs approval]	[When to escalate]

Sign-off authority

Final approval holder: [Role and name]

What they can approve alone: [Scope of authority]

What requires escalation: [Issues beyond their authority]

Parallel vs sequential reviews

Parallel reviews (can happen simultaneously): [Which stages]
Sequential reviews (must happen in order): [Which stages]
Why: [Brief explanation of dependencies]

Escalation protocol

If reviewer doesn’t respond within turnaround time:

Send reminder message
After [X hours], escalate to [role]
If still unresolved, escalate to [final authority]

If reviewers disagree:

Resolution approach: [e.g., meeting with both parties, final say of X role]
Timeline for resolution: [e.g., 2 hours]

Emergency/expedited approval

Trigger: [When expedited process kicks in]

Expedited timeline: [e.g., 4 hours total instead of 48]

Who must approve (minimum): [e.g., Legal + Brand only, not full chain]

AI prompt

Base prompt

I'm creating an approval workflow for [COMMUNICATION TYPE] that needs sign-off from [STAKEHOLDER GROUPS].

Current situation:
- Who needs to review: [List roles/names]
- Key concerns: [e.g., legal compliance, brand consistency, tone]
- Typical review time available: [e.g., 48 hours]
- Escalation triggers: [e.g., regulatory impact, CEO quotes, budget mentions]

Using this information, create a detailed approval workflow that includes:
1. A table showing each review stage, reviewer, responsibility, turnaround time, pass criteria, and escalation trigger
2. Clear sign-off authority (who makes the final decision)
3. Which reviews can happen in parallel vs must be sequential (with reasons)
4. An escalation protocol if reviewers miss deadlines
5. An expedited approval path for urgent communications

Format it as a clear workflow that avoids bottlenecks while maintaining necessary oversight.

Prompt variations

Variation 1 - Complex multi-stakeholder scenario:

We have [NUMBER] stakeholder groups reviewing content: [Legal, Compliance, Brand, Executive, Communications]. Some have competing priorities. Create an approval workflow that:
- Clarifies which reviews are truly sequential vs can run in parallel
- Reduces total approval time from current [X hours] to approximately [Y hours]
- Includes decision criteria so reviewers know what they're actually assessing
- Builds in escalation paths for disagreement between stakeholders

Variation 2 - High-speed communications:

We need approval workflows for crisis/urgent communications that currently take [X hours] but need to complete in [Y hours]. Current full process requires [list]. Which steps can be streamlined or removed for urgent situations? Create both a standard and expedited workflow, showing what's cut in urgent mode and why that's acceptable.

Variation 3 - New approval process setup:

We've never formally documented our approval process for [COMMUNICATION TYPE]. People currently just email reviewers in an unclear order. Based on these stakeholder roles and their expertise: [List], design a clear, documented approval workflow that:
- Removes guesswork about who reviews what
- Establishes clear turnaround times
- Defines what each role is actually checking for
- Minimises back-and-forth

Variation 4 - Regulatory/compliance focus:

Our [COMMUNICATION TYPE] requires sign-off from legal, compliance, and brand because of [REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS/RISK FACTORS]. Create an approval workflow that ensures we're meeting all our obligations but doesn't create unnecessary delays. Include what specifically each role is checking for and how they know if content is compliant.

Variation 5 - Accountability documentation:

We need to document exactly who has sign-off authority for [COMMUNICATION TYPE] decisions. Currently it's unclear whether [Role 1], [Role 2], or [Role 3] makes the final call, leading to delays. Create a workflow that clarifies:
- Each role's decision-making authority
- What they can approve alone vs what needs escalation
- Clear criteria for what "approval" means

Human review checklist

Example output

Communication type: Press release announcing strategic partnership

Total approval time: 48 hours

Stage	Reviewer role	Responsibility	Turnaround	Pass criteria	Escalation trigger
1	Communications Manager	Check messaging alignment, tone, clarity	4 hours	Meets brand guidelines, clear narrative	Contains regulatory language requiring legal review
2	Legal (in parallel)	Verify no liability or contractual issues	6 hours	No legal risks, contractual accuracy confirmed	Any partnership terms unclear or requiring board approval
3	Finance	Confirm financial information accuracy	4 hours (parallel)	Numbers verified, no confidential data disclosed	Includes revenue/profit impact needing CFO approval
4	Head of Communications	Final approval, brand consistency check	2 hours	All previous approvals received, brand aligned	Disagreement between reviewers, requires mediation

Sign-off authority: Head of Communications makes final decision. Can approve unilaterally unless Finance or Legal flag concerns. If disagreement, escalates to Managing Director.

Parallel reviews: Communications, Legal, and Finance can review simultaneously.

Escalation protocol: If reviewer doesn’t respond within turnaround time, send reminder at 2-hour mark. At 4-hour mark, escalate to their manager. If still unresolved, skip their stage and proceed (noted in approval log).

Emergency pathway: For urgent responses (activated by Communications Manager), only Legal and Head of Communications sign-off needed. 4-hour total turnaround.

Content Approval Tracker – Monitor approval status across multiple items
Claims Substantiation Checklist – Ensure legal/compliance standards
Tone Style Checker – Verify brand voice consistency
Accessibility Review Checklist – Inclusive communications standards

Tips for success

Define decision criteria, not just reviewers. Don’t just list “Legal reviews it.” Specify what Legal is checking for: contractual accuracy, liability concerns, regulatory compliance. This prevents vague rejections.

Make parallel reviews explicit. Don’t assume which steps can happen at the same time. Document which reviews genuinely depend on others finishing first (sequential) vs which can overlap (parallel). This saves hours.

Build in realistic turnaround times. Don’t put “24 hours” if that reviewer typically takes 3 days. Use actual capacity, not aspirational timelines. This prevents bottleneck surprises.

Document escalation paths clearly. What happens if a reviewer misses their deadline? What if two reviewers disagree? Create a documented escalation process so you don’t make decisions in crisis mode.

Create an expedited pathway. Identify what reviews absolutely must happen vs what can be skipped in urgent situations. Document this so no one has to decide under pressure.

Common pitfalls

Making reviews too sequential. If you insist on strict sequential sign-off (A approves, then B, then C), you add days. Check which reviews actually depend on each other vs which can run parallel. Finance can often review while Legal does, for example.

Ignoring real turnaround times. Creating a workflow assuming 4-hour reviews when your reviewer takes 2 days creates frustration. Either get faster reviews or adjust timelines. Document what you’ll actually achieve, not what you wish would happen.

Vague approval criteria. Saying a role “reviews and approves” creates scope creep where reviewers expand their checking far beyond their area. Be specific: Legal checks regulatory compliance; Brand checks tone and visual guidelines. Not everything.

Missing the escalation protocol. When reviews stall or reviewers disagree, you need a documented resolution path, not crisis meetings. Define in advance: who decides if reviewers can’t agree? How long before you escalate? What’s the fallback?

Treating all communications the same. A routine internal memo doesn’t need the same workflow as a crisis statement or major announcement. Document different workflows for different risk levels so approvals match the stakes.