An illustrative governance framework
A proposed set of principles, review points and workflow roles that a live engagement could adapt to its own data, people and terms.
- Client
- Hartwell M&E Group
- Maturity
- 2.4 · of 5.0
- Workflows in scope
- 6
- Suggested cadence
- Quarterly
- Prepared by
- BuiltAI Intelligence Ltd
- Status
- Example framework
Illustrative worked example: fictional project and parties; figures, names and dates are fictional scenario details.
Five principles, one rule: people decide
This example sets out five proposed principles for a live workflow: assign human review; agree what data is needed and how it is handled; keep source references and versions; adapt review to risk; and revisit the approach as the engagement develops.
A live engagement could assign a competent person to review drafts and make the relevant decisions before use.
Example data tiers and review roles
This example groups data into three tiers and suggests reviewer roles by output. A live engagement could define its own categories, safeguards and review responsibilities to fit its data and terms.
| Example output | Example risk | Possible reviewer role |
|---|---|---|
| RAMS and safety documentation | High | Competent H&S reviewer, then Operations Director |
| Client-facing commercial submissions | High | QS or Commercial Manager, then Commercial Director |
| Tender responses and bid documents | Medium to high | Estimating Lead, with Commercial Director on high-value bids |
| Variation narratives and notices | Medium | QS or Contract Manager, with Commercial Director on high-value claims |
| Monthly contract reports | Medium | Contract Manager |
| Internal summaries and action logs | Low | Workflow user, self-review |
A live engagement could define review steps that remain workable near a deadline; this example does not establish controls already in operation.
Example recordkeeping approach
An engagement could define records for inputs, drafts, reviews and final outputs, with access and retention periods set by its approved terms.
For a live tender or client request, check the applicable requirement and use wording agreed for that engagement; this framework suggests openness without setting a universal disclosure rule.
Example responsibilities to assign
Before a live workflow, an engagement could assign responsibilities such as the example roles below to suit its people, controls and terms.
| Example role | Possible responsibility | Example role holder |
|---|---|---|
| Framework owner | The controls, the review cadence and any change to them | Operations Director |
| Data classification | The tier of each data set and any restricted-data approval | Commercial Director |
| Competent reviewer | Checking each draft against its source before approval | Named per output in the gate table |
| Approver | The sign-off decision and the outcome that follows it | Director named per output in the gate table |
| Workflow user | Running the workflow within the controls and raising exceptions | Each trained user |
Keeping the framework live
This example suggests a review cycle that a live engagement could adapt to its needs and approved terms.