Change Request and Change Register Template
A one-page change request with honest impact assessment including what it displaces, delegated approval thresholds so small changes move in a day, and a register showing the cumulative position.
Markdown. No sign-up, no email.
One page. The temptation is to expand this form until it deters requests — which works, and produces undocumented changes rather than fewer changes.
Change ref: CR-____ Date raised: _______ Raised by: _______________ Project: _______________
What is requested#
Change: _______________
Why, and why now: _______________
Urgency: routine / next release / urgent — justification: _______________
Is this a change or a defect? change / defect against requirement ____ / clarification
A defect against an agreed requirement is not a change. A requirement that was never specified is a change. Reclassifying missed requirements as defects to dodge this conversation destroys trust — and so does the reverse.
Impact assessment#
Not assessed by the person requesting it.
| Development effort | |
| Retesting required | |
| Documentation and requirement updates | |
| Regression risk | |
| Schedule impact | |
| Cost impact | |
| Risks introduced | |
| Assessed by |
What this displaces: _______________
🔴 The displacement line is what makes the decision real. On a fixed-capacity project every addition is a substitution — naming what will not happen converts an abstract approval into a trade-off, and it changes decisions.
If effort is genuinely unknown: say so and offer to assess properly. A number invented in a meeting becomes a commitment by the end of it.
Decision#
| Decision | approve / reject / defer until ___ |
| Decided by | |
| Date | |
| Rationale |
After approval — update these#
- [ ] Requirements (BRD / FRD / SRS)
- [ ] Traceability matrix
- [ ] Test scope and UAT criteria
- [ ] Plan and budget
- [ ] Risk register
- [ ] Stakeholders informed
A change approved but not reflected in the artefacts is how documents and reality diverge.
Delegated Authority#
Set thresholds so small changes clear in a day. A process that takes three weeks to approve a two-hour change will be bypassed — and the bypassing will not be visible.
| Size | Decided by | Target turnaround |
|---|---|---|
| No cost or schedule impact, within scope | Project manager | Same day |
| Absorbed within contingency | PM, sponsor informed | 1–2 days |
| Material cost, schedule or scope impact | Sponsor | Weekly cycle |
| Beyond the charter boundary | Steering group | Scheduled |
Emergency path: who may approve ___________, evidence required ___________, documented within ___ hours afterwards.
Change Register#
| Ref | Summary | Raised | Decision | Schedule impact | Cost impact | Decided by |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CR-001 |
Cumulative position — report at every review#
| Changes raised | |
| Approved | |
| Rejected | |
| Cumulative schedule impact | |
| Cumulative cost impact | |
| What has been dropped to absorb them |
🔴 This table is the one that matters and the one nobody volunteers. Fifteen individually reasonable changes have added eleven weeks; each was assessed alone, so nobody said so. Sponsors approve individually reasonable things and are generally grateful to see the aggregate.
If nothing has ever been rejected, the process is a recording mechanism rather than a control.