Step-by-step checklist for review request workflow, drawn from Canadian client engagement playbooks.
This checklist is the actual reference we use internally on Canadian client engagements for review request workflow. It is organized as sequential phases — discovery, planning, execution, validation, and ongoing — with specific tasks under each. Quality gates between phases ensure work is not rushed past obvious issues.
The checklist assumes you have either internal capacity to execute the work or a partner you trust to execute it. If you are evaluating whether to do this in-house or with a partner, the checklist itself is also useful as a scope document for proposal evaluation.
Estimated total effort: 40–120 hours depending on starting point, organizational complexity, and required depth. Estimated calendar time: 6–14 weeks for initial completion, with ongoing maintenance afterward.
**1.1** Document the current state. Screenshot relevant baselines, export current data, capture starting metrics. This becomes your before/after reference and is impossible to recreate after work begins.
**1.2** Interview the stakeholders who own related areas — sales, customer service, product, leadership. Their context shapes priorities you cannot infer from data alone.
**1.3** Audit the current review request workflow setup against industry baseline expectations. Identify the gap between current and competitive standard.
**1.4** Pull competitor data on review request workflow. Identify what your top 3–5 competitors do that you do not.
**1.5** Document the business outcomes review request workflow should drive. If you cannot articulate the business reason, the work will drift.
**Quality gate:** can you summarize current state, target state, and the business value of closing the gap in three sentences? If not, return to discovery before planning.
**2.1** List all candidate work items identified in discovery. Estimate effort and impact for each.
**2.2** Sort by impact-divided-by-effort ratio. Highest-leverage items first.
**2.3** Identify dependencies. Some items must be done in sequence; others can run in parallel.
**2.4** Define the minimum viable scope — what must ship to deliver business value? Cut everything beyond that for the initial pass.
**2.5** Establish measurement. What metrics will tell you whether the work succeeded? How will you measure them? When will you check?
**2.6** Get explicit stakeholder sign-off on scope, timeline, and success criteria. Surprises later are 5× more expensive than alignment now.
**Quality gate:** is the plan executable by the people you have, in the time you have, with the budget you have? If any answer is no, return to planning.
**3.1** Execute the highest-leverage item first. Resist the temptation to batch-process — focused depth beats parallel breadth at this stage.
**3.2** Document what you did and why. Future you (or your successor) will need this context.
**3.3** Validate each completed item before moving to the next. Did the work produce the expected change? If not, why not?
**3.4** Adjust the plan based on what you learn. Plans made before execution always need refinement during execution.
**3.5** Communicate progress weekly to stakeholders. Surprises later are 5× more expensive than visibility now.
**3.6** Resist scope creep. Items added during execution should be parking-lotted for the next pass, not absorbed into the current pass.
**Quality gate:** at the end of each completed item, is the work production-quality? Could you defend it to a senior peer review? If not, fix before moving on.
**4.1** Wait the appropriate time for results to materialize. Most review request workflow work takes 4–12 weeks to show signal in the data. Resist the urge to evaluate too early.
**4.2** Compare actual results against expected results. Be honest about gaps.
**4.3** Document lessons learned. What worked better than expected? What worked worse? Why?
**4.4** Identify follow-on work surfaced by the initial pass. Add to the next planning cycle.
**4.5** Present results to stakeholders with both successes and gaps explicit. Hiding gaps erodes credibility for future programs.
**Quality gate:** would the results justify the investment if reviewed by a skeptical CFO? If not, the program needs adjustment before continuing.
**5.1** Define the recurring cadence — monthly, quarterly, annual — for each maintenance task.
**5.2** Assign ownership. Tasks without named owners do not get done.
**5.3** Build the ongoing cost into the operating budget. review request workflow is not a one-time investment; ongoing maintenance is non-negotiable for sustained results.
**5.4** Schedule the next major review. Annual at minimum; semi-annual for businesses where review request workflow drives significant revenue.
**5.5** Maintain the artifacts. Update documentation as the program evolves so successor owners can pick up cleanly.
If you would value a candid second opinion calibrated to your business, book a 30-minute strategy call — we answer specific tactical questions for free even when there is no project for us in it.