Skip to main content

Review Boards & Design Reviews

Conduct effective architectural reviews that catch risks early without becoming approval bottlenecks.

TL;DR​

Conduct effective architectural reviews that catch risks early without becoming approval bottlenecks. Success in this area comes from balancing clarity with autonomy, establishing lightweight processes that serve teams, and continuously evolving based on feedback and organizational growth.

Learning Objectives​

  • Understand the purpose and scope of review boards & design reviews
  • Learn practical implementation approaches and best practices
  • Recognize common pitfalls and how to avoid them
  • Build sustainable processes that scale with your organization
  • Mentor others in applying these principles effectively

Motivating Scenario​

Your organization faces a challenge that review boards & design reviews directly addresses. Without clear processes and alignment, teams work in silos, making duplicate decisions or conflicting choices. Investments are wasted, knowledge doesn't transfer, and teams reinvent wheels repeatedly. This section provides frameworks, templates, and practices to move forward with confidence and coherence.

Core Concepts​

Purpose and Value​

Review Boards & Design Reviews matters because it creates clarity without creating bureaucracy. When processes are lightweight and transparent, teams understand what decisions matter and can move fast with safety.

Key Principles​

  1. Clarity: Make the "why" behind processes explicit
  2. Lightweight: Every process should create more value than it costs
  3. Transparency: Document criteria so teams know what to expect
  4. Evolution: Regularly review and refine based on experience
  5. Participation: Include affected teams in designing processes

Implementation Pattern​

Most successful implementations follow this pattern: understand current state, design minimal viable process, pilot with early adopters, gather feedback, refine, and scale.

Governance Without Bureaucracy​

The hard part is scaling without creating approval bottlenecks. This requires clear decision criteria, asynchronous review mechanisms, and truly delegating decisions to teams.

Practical Example​

# Review Boards & Design Reviews - Implementation Roadmap

Week 1-2: Discovery & Design
  - Understand current pain points
  - Design minimal viable process
  - Identify early adopter teams
  - Create templates and documentation

Week 3-4: Pilot & Feedback
  - Run process with pilot teams
  - Gather feedback weekly
  - Make quick adjustments
  - Document lessons learned

Week 5-6: Refinement & Documentation
  - Incorporate feedback
  - Create training materials
  - Prepare communication plan
  - Build tools to support process

Week 7+: Scaling & Iteration
  - Roll out to all teams
  - Monitor adoption metrics
  - Gather feedback monthly
  - Continuously improve based on learning

Core Principles in Practice​

  1. Make the Why Clear: Teams will follow processes they understand the purpose of
  2. Delegate Authority: Push decisions down; keep strategy centralized
  3. Use Asynchronous Review: Documents and ADRs scale better than meetings
  4. Measure Impact: Track metrics that show whether process is working
  5. Iterate Quarterly: Regular review keeps processes relevant

Success Indicators​

✓ Teams proactively engage in the process ✓ 80%+ adoption without enforcement ✓ Clear reduction in the pain point the process addresses ✓ Minimal time overhead (less than 5% of team capacity) ✓ Positive feedback in retrospectives

Pitfalls to Avoid​

❌ Process theater: Requiring documentation no one reads ❌ Over-standardization: Same rules for all teams and all decisions ❌ Changing frequently: Processes need 3-6 months to stabilize ❌ Ignoring feedback: Refusing to adapt based on experience ❌ One-size-fits-all: Different teams need different process levels ❌ No documentation: Unwritten processes get inconsistently applied

This practice connects to:

  • Architecture Governance & Organization (overall structure)
  • Reliability & Resilience (ensuring systems stay healthy)
  • Documentation & ADRs (capturing decisions and rationale)
  • Team Structure & Communication (enabling effective collaboration)

Checklist: Before You Implement​

  • Clear problem statement: "This process solves [X]"
  • Stakeholder input: Teams that will use it helped design it
  • Minimal viable version: Start simple, add complexity only if needed
  • Success metrics: Define what "better" looks like
  • Communication plan: How will people learn about this?
  • Pilot plan: Early adopters to validate before scaling
  • Review schedule: When will we revisit and refine?

Self-Check​

  1. Can you explain the purpose of this process in one sentence? If not, it's too complex.
  2. Do 80% of teams engage without being forced? If not, reconsider its value.
  3. Have you measured the actual impact? Or are you assuming it works?
  4. When did you last gather feedback? If >3 months, do it now.

Takeaway​

The best processes are rarely the most comprehensive ones. They're the ones teams choose to follow because they see the value. Start lightweight, measure impact, gather feedback, and iterate. A simple process that 90% of teams adopt is infinitely better than a perfect process that 30% of teams bypass.

Design Review Process in Practice​

Pre-Review (Async) Phase​

## Design Review Submission Template

### Problem Statement
- What problem are we solving?
- Why is this the right approach?

### Proposed Architecture
- System diagram (draw.io, ASCII art acceptable)
- Component responsibilities
- Data flow
- Integration points

### Alternatives Considered
- Why not option A?
- Why not option B?

### Risks & Mitigation
- Performance risks: [mitigation]
- Scalability risks: [mitigation]
- Security risks: [mitigation]
- Operational complexity: [mitigation]

### Timeline & Resources
- Estimated delivery
- Team skills/gaps
- Dependencies

### Success Metrics
- How will we know this is working?
---
## Reviewer Checklist

Async Review Expectations:
- [ ] Architecture aligns with organizational standards
- [ ] Identified and documented risks
- [ ] Realistic timeline and resource plan
- [ ] No blocking issues (proceed to sync meeting)
- [ ] Comments/questions noted

Expected turnaround: 2-3 business days

Synchronous Review Meeting​

Pre-Meeting (Email):
- Design doc sent 3 days in advance
- Reviewers submit async comments
- Designer responds to questions

Meeting (1 hour):
- 10 min: Designer presents (high-level, not detailed)
- 20 min: Reviewer questions and discussion
- 20 min: Consensus building
  - "What's required to move forward?"
  - "What's optional?"
  - "What concerns remain?"
- 10 min: Document decision and next steps

Outcomes:
1. Approved: Proceed with implementation
2. Approved with conditions: Specific items must be done before launch
3. Needs revision: Return for redesign
4. Rejected: Alternative approach required

Documentation:
- Add ADR (Architecture Decision Record)
- Link in tracking system
- Mark conditions in project tracking

Example Review Outcomes​

APPROVED:
Microservices architecture for order processing
- Clean separation of concerns
- Risks properly mitigated
- Team has experience
→ Proceed to implementation

APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS:
GraphQL API for mobile clients
- API design approved
- Condition 1: Must implement rate limiting before launch
- Condition 2: Must add API versioning strategy
- Condition 3: Must document migration path from REST
→ Proceed; verify conditions in pre-launch review

NEEDS REVISION:
Machine Learning model for recommendations
- Concerns: Data pipeline not well understood
- Questions: How do we handle cold start? Bias?
- Feedback: Show how model performance will be monitored
→ Revise and resubmit

REJECTED:
Single monolithic database for all services
- Violates scalability standard
- Creates unacceptable operational risk
- Conflicts with microservices architecture decision
→ Either: 1) Use separate databases per service, or 2) Propose exemption

Avoiding Common Review Board Problems​

PROBLEM: Slow reviews (takes 3 weeks)
SOLUTION:
- Set 3-day SLA for async review
- Escalate if SLA missed
- Reduce review board size
- Use tiered reviews (simple vs complex)

PROBLEM: Approval becomes rubber stamp
SOLUTION:
- Require specific feedback from all reviewers
- Track "approved" vs "approved with concerns"
- Public dashboard of design review velocity/approval rates
- Rotate reviewers to prevent groupthink

PROBLEM: Conflicts between reviewers
SOLUTION:
- Document decision criteria upfront
- Use "RACI" to clarify who decides
- Escalate to higher authority if needed
- Document rationale for decisions

PROBLEM: Reviews block important work
SOLUTION:
- Use fast-track process for urgent items
- Retrospectively review if blocking is common
- Delegate more decisions to teams
- Trust teams to make good decisions

PROBLEM: Reviewers don't show up
SOLUTION:
- Publicly track attendance
- Rotate review board responsibility
- Make reviews optional if truly low-risk
- Use async-only for simple reviews

Metrics for Review Process Health​

# Track design review effectiveness
metrics = {
    # Speed
    'time_to_approval': 'Median days from submission to approval',
    'review_sla_met': 'Percentage meeting 3-day review SLA',

    # Quality
    'issues_caught_in_review': 'Bugs/risks caught vs found in production',
    'redesigns_required': 'Percentage needing revision',

    # Engagement
    'reviewer_attendance': 'Percentage of assigned reviewers present',
    'reviewer_feedback_quality': 'Average comments per review',

    # Impact
    'approved_designs_on_schedule': 'Percentage delivered as planned',
    'production_incidents_from_design': 'Preventable issues that reached prod',

    # Efficiency
    'review_meeting_duration': 'Minutes per review (target: 60 min)',
    'designs_reviewed_per_month': 'Throughput (target: 20-30)',
}

# Success indicators
success = {
    'team_satisfaction': '>80% teams report review was valuable',
    'issues_prevented': '>5 major issues caught before implementation',
    'learning': 'Teams cite reviews as learning opportunities',
    'culture': 'Teams proactively seek feedback, not see review as obstacle',
}

Next Steps​

  1. Define the problem: What specifically are you trying to solve?
  2. Understand current state: How do teams work today?
  3. Design minimally: What's the smallest change that creates value?
  4. Pilot with volunteers: Find early adopters who see the value
  5. Gather feedback: Weekly for the first month, then monthly
  6. Refine and scale: Incorporate feedback and expand gradually
  7. Establish review board: Define members, frequency, decision criteria
  8. Create templates: Design submission and feedback templates
  9. Track metrics: Monitor review speed, quality, impact
  10. Iterate quarterly: Adjust process based on feedback and metrics

References​

  1. ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010: Systems and Software Engineering ↗️
  2. Martin Fowler: Architecture Decision Records ↗️
  3. Forsgren, Humble, Kim: Accelerate ↗️
  4. "The Art of Software Architecture" (Diomidis Spinellis - design review patterns)
  5. "Domain-Driven Design" (Eric Evans - architectural review practices)