Operating Model for Authority Management: Roles, Cadence, and Ownership (Q&A)

Q&A on the operating model for running an authority program: who owns what, how often to review, change workflows, and leadership reporting.

Definition: An authority management operating model is the organizational structure — including ownership roles, review cadences, change workflows, and reporting mechanisms — that keeps decision rights, approval limits, and delegated authority current, enforceable, and audit-ready as the organization evolves.

An authority matrix is not a document you finish. It's a program you run. This Q&A covers the operating model that keeps authority current without burying teams in process. McKinsey's research on organizational decision-making found that the most effective organizations have clear decision rights and treat authority as a living system — not a periodic compliance exercise.

Q: Who should own the authority program?

A: Most organizations succeed when there is:

If you only have someone in finance managing authority, it will drift as soon as workflows change.

RoleResponsibilitiesTypical FunctionReview Cadence
Policy ownerSets governance principles, approves material changes, owns complianceCFO, General Counsel, or Board committeeAnnual policy review + event-driven
Matrix ownerMaintains decision taxonomy, processes changes, manages versioningFinance, Risk, or dedicated Authority teamWeekly/biweekly change processing
Process ownersValidate rules against operational reality, surface exceptionsProcurement, Finance Ops, Legal Ops, TreasuryMonthly reconciliation
System ownersAlign workflow routing and access controls to authority rulesIT, ERP admins, system integratorsQuarterly system alignment check

Q: What decisions should be centralized vs decentralized?

A: Centralize the things that need consistency:

Decentralize what needs local context:

Azvizory research found that organizations with distributed authority models drive 25 percent higher innovation and 20 percent better retention — the key is distributing authority intentionally while keeping the governance framework centralized.

Q: How often should we review authority?

A: Use a mixed cadence:

The cadence should reflect risk and volume. West Monroe's 2026 research found that 44 percent of executives cite bureaucratic processes as the top cause of slow decisions — the operating cadence should be frequent enough to catch drift but lightweight enough to avoid becoming the bureaucracy it's meant to prevent.

Q: What's the minimum change workflow that works?

A: Keep it simple:

1) request (with scope, justification, effective dates)
2) impact check (SoD/risk flags + systems impacted)
3) approval (right stakeholders for the risk)
4) publish (versioned, effective dated)
5) notify (and collect acknowledgment when appropriate)

If any step is missing, you'll be reconstructing history later.

Our recommendation: Build the impact check (step 2) into the request workflow itself — not as a separate manual step. When SoD and risk flags are checked automatically at request time, conflicts are caught before approval rather than discovered during audits. This single automation eliminates the most common source of control gaps we see in authority programs.

Q: How do we prevent shadow authority (email approvals and workarounds)?

A: Treat workarounds as signals. When teams route around the official process, it's usually because:

The fix is often usability and a defined exception path — not stricter policing. West Monroe's research found that each request for additional analysis adds an average of three weeks of delay — if your authority process adds weeks, teams will find faster alternatives.

Q: What should leadership reporting look like?

A: Reporting should focus on drift and risk signals:

These indicators show whether the program is healthy. For detailed metrics, see Authority Monitoring and Reporting Metrics.

Q: Where does Aptly help?

A: Aptly supports the day-to-day mechanics of the operating model: searchable authority rules, controlled issuance, version history, time-bound delegations, and audit-ready logs. That makes it easier to run authority as a program rather than a static spreadsheet.

Next: For a phased rollout approach, see Launching Aptly: A 30–60–90 Day Plan. For repeatable change workflows, see Authority Change Management Playbook.

Get started with Aptly.

Connect with our team for a discovery session to learn more about how Aptly can help within your organization.  If you are already a client and need support, contact us here.