Design a decentralized approval process to eliminate bottlenecks.
When everything has to wait for one person to give a nod, it is not a human issue; it is an issue of approval architecture.
Bottlenecks in the approval process often stem from placing too much responsibility on one person, usually the founder or director. The solution is to tier by risk: low-risk routine tasks can be handled by the team using templates, while only matters affecting the core brand or having legal implications should escalate to the center. Each type of task must have exactly one person responsible, not a committee that just nods.
- Allow the team to self-approve when using the correct original template and low-risk content.
- It is mandatory to go to the center when creating assets outside of templates or when there are legal factors involved.
- You need a separate escalation path when both parties review disagreements or urgent matters.
- Overloading everything onto one approver creates a bottleneck.
- The approval law is only communicated verbally; newcomers do not know the way.
When you complain that everything has to wait for approval, the right question is not "how to approve faster" but "why do these things need approval in the first place?" The bottleneck does not come from slow approvers; it comes from a flawed approval architecture: too many tasks converge at one point, with unclear boundaries between what the team can handle and what needs to be escalated.
Layering by risk, not by asset type.
A common mistake is delegating by category, for example, "the social media team handles it themselves, while print must be approved." The correct classification should be based on the brand risk of each specific task.
- Low risk: Using the correct available templates, standard content, not touching core identity or positioning. The team handles it independently, no approval needed.
- Medium risk: light adjustments to templates, new content but within the established framework. The team leader or brand manager approves internally.
- High risk: New assets outside of templates, major campaigns, positioning conflicts, or legal elements. It is mandatory to escalate to the center, meaning the person accountable for the brand must take responsibility.
The boundary between these three layers must be documented specifically. If it only exists in the manager's words, newcomers will not know the way forward and will default to asking everything.
RACI matrix: a tool for clear role separation
RACI is a role assignment matrix consisting of four groups. For each type of task, you identify:
- Responsible (the executor): who creates that product.
- Accountable: the person who has the authority to finalize and bear the results, meaning the decision-maker for that task. The golden rule: each task should have exactly one person Accountable. More than one person means no one is truly responsible.
- Consulted: who needs to be consulted before finalizing. This list must be short; too many names here create a new bottleneck.
- Informed (those who just need to know): who receives the notification of the results. This list also needs to be concise; too many names create information noise.
Each task has one accountable person. This is not to concentrate power, but to always know who has the authority to finalize decisions and avoid bottlenecks.
Practical experience.
The template library is the main bottleneck remover.
Most daily tasks within the team can be pre-prepared as templates that have been approved once. When templates exist and the team uses them correctly, no further approval is needed. This significantly reduces hundreds of minor approvals in a year.
This means that investing in a good template library is not just about design; it is an operational decision. The more comprehensive the templates, the more autonomous the team becomes, and the reviewers are freed up to focus on the decisions that truly require their input.
Mandatory escalation to the center when: creating new assets outside of templates, campaigns have a wide scope, touch on positioning or core identity, or have any elements that need legal consideration.
Common mistakes when designing the approval rights
- Concentrating everything on one person: usually the founder or marketing director. When that person is absent or busy, the entire process comes to a halt.
- Many people are Accountable: It sounds safer, but in reality, no one truly finalizes. Tasks get stalled because everyone thinks someone else will decide.
- Do not set response deadlines: the approval process drags on indefinitely because no one is pressured to respond. Each approval layer needs a specific timeframe, for example: internal approval within one working day, central approval within three working days.
- The law only exists in words: the old ones know implicitly, the new ones do not know the way, default to asking everything and recreating the bottleneck.
- No escalation path: When two parties disagree or urgency arises, no one knows who has the authority to finalize, leaving the matter unresolved.
Stage gate instead of arbitrary approval.
The stage gate is a mandatory handoff point that requires confirmation before moving to the next step. It is more transparent than arbitrary approval, as everyone knows where each task stands and who has the authority to pass it. The review reminders and routing can also be integrated into project management tools, ensuring the right people are involved without relying on anyone's memory.
Decision checklist
Topic: Who approves what: designing a decentralized approval law. Sinh Vũ guide, sinhvu.com
Tick each item that applies or that you can already answer, then print or save as PDF to take with you.
If you have marked most of the signs above, this is the time to discuss in more detail. Sinh Vũ can help you review and propose a direction.
This article provides general information according to the documents in effect as of October 6, 2026. This is not legal advice and does not substitute for a lawyer's opinion for your specific case. Rights and obligations between Sinh Vũ and clients arise only according to the signed contract.
References
Asana, RACI Charts guide; Umbrex, RACI Responsibility Matrix; Canva, Design operations guide; Frontify, Brand governance framework. The insights and application lens are practical experiences of Sinh Vũ.
Frequently asked questions
What is the RACI matrix, and how is it applied to brand approvals?
RACI is a role assignment matrix consisting of four groups: Responsible (the doer), Accountable (the final responsible person, only one person per task), Consulted (the person consulted before finalizing), Informed (the person who just needs to know the outcome). In brand approval, you list each type of asset and assign these four roles, ensuring that the Accountable column never has two names on the same line.
Which type of assets can the team approve independently, and which types must be escalated to higher management?
The team can self-approve when using the correct approved template, the content does not touch on positioning or core identity, and there are no legal elements. Approval is mandatory when creating new assets outside the template, when the campaign has a wide impact, or when there are any statements that need legal consideration. This boundary needs to be documented, not communicated verbally.
What if the two reviewers disagree?
This is why the approval process needs a clear escalation path from the start. When both sides disagree, or when urgent matters exceed response deadlines, a third party must be designated in advance to finalize decisions, preventing indefinite delays due to no one having the authority to adjudicate.
This article is for reference. The scope, pricing, and specific commitments of Sinh Vũ are detailed in the proposal and signed contract.