Why most CAB meetings fail — and what to do instead
The weekly change advisory board was meant to reduce risk. In a lot of organisations it's become a rubber stamp, a bottleneck, or both. The fix usually isn't a better meeting — it's a better model for which changes need a meeting at all.
Standard changes shouldn't be in the room. If a change is low-risk, well-understood and repeatable, the value of a board reviewing it live is close to zero — and the cost, in delay and attention, is real. Pre-authorise them against clear criteria and keep the board's time for changes that genuinely need judgement.
Normal changes need assessment, not theatre. A board works when it's reviewing risk, dependencies and readiness — not re-reading a form everyone could have read beforehand. Tighten the peer review upstream and the meeting gets shorter and sharper.
Emergency changes need a route that doesn't depend on a meeting at all. The test of change governance isn't how it handles the easy ones; it's whether the right people can authorise the right change at 2am without breaking the process.