What belongs in a committee decision paper
State what the committee is asked to authorize, why the recommendation follows from the evidence, and what happens after the meeting.
Put the requested authority on the first page
Illustrative wording for a systems review. Replace the scope, authority and conditions with the actual proposal.
Approve a limited assessment of the replacement options. The assessment may compare cost, capacity and transition requirements. A system purchase requires a separate approval.
Make the approval precise
The opening request should specify the scope and limits of the approval. In the example above, permission to assess replacement options does not authorize a system purchase. A reader should be able to carry that distinction into the decision record without interpreting the rest of the paper.
Name the owner of the recommendation and the authority the committee is exercising. If the paper is for information, say when any later approval will be needed.
Let the reader challenge the recommendation
Scroll the comparison to read every column.
| Option | What it requires | Assumption to test |
|---|---|---|
| Keep the current arrangement | Continued support and manual work. | Support remains available for the intended period. |
| Adapt the existing system | Technical assessment and internal capacity. | The system can meet the revised requirements. |
| Replace the system | Procurement, migration and transition capacity. | The expected benefit justifies the full transition cost. |
Show what could change the recommendation
Include the alternatives that received serious consideration and the reasons for selecting the preferred option. Compare their cost, resource requirements, and effect on responsibilities. Explain any implementation constraint that makes an apparently attractive option impractical.
Put a material assumption beside the conclusion that relies on it. If continued support for the existing system is uncertain, that uncertainty belongs beside the option to retain it. Where the committee must decide before evidence is available, specify a condition or limit on the requested approval.
An appendix can hold calculations and reference material. Keep enough evidence in the main paper for a reader to challenge the recommendation.
Record the committee’s actual decision
Record after the meeting
- Actual decision
- Approval, refusal or deferral, including changes made in discussion.
- Conditions and owner
- Who must satisfy each condition before the next commitment.
- Return for review
- The change in scope, evidence or resources that needs further authority.
Assign the work after approval
Identify the implementation owner and the resources the proposal requires. List conditions that must be satisfied before work starts, and describe which later changes would need further authority.
Record the decision made in the room
The committee may amend, defer, or reject the recommendation. Its decision record should capture what it actually authorized, including changed conditions and actions assigned during discussion.
Open conditions need owners and review points. When the matter returns, explain how the new request relates to the earlier authority and which conditions remain unresolved.