Event governance health check
The event is on track on paper, yet decisions keep stalling and people disagree about who owns what.
The short answer
An event governance health check is ten yes, partly or no questions about owners, decision rights, escalation, approval times, records and handover. Answer them with two or three committee members, not alone.
The score is not a grade. It points to the one or two gaps worth fixing first.
How to run it
- Pick two or three people with different views, for example the chair, secretariat and finance.
- Answer each question separately, then compare answers.
- Where answers differ, that is the finding. Note it.
- Choose the lowest-scoring one or two areas and name an owner for each fix.
- Run it again after the next milestone.
The ten questions
| # | Question | Fix guide |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Does every key task have one named accountable role? | RACI matrix |
| 2 | Is it written down who may decide each major choice, with limits? | Decision-rights matrix |
| 3 | Do people know when and to whom to escalate a problem? | Escalation ladder |
| 4 | Do approvers have agreed response times and deputies? | Approval turnaround |
| 5 | Does the committee have written terms of reference? | Terms of reference |
| 6 | Are decisions logged with owner, status and due date? | Decision log |
| 7 | If co-hosted, is the split of money, brand, data and contracts in writing? | Joint-organiser responsibilities |
| 8 | Could a new member take over a role within a week? | Member handover |
| 9 | Is each committee member's workload realistic for the period? | Workload planner |
| 10 | Do stakeholders know who the contact is for their questions? | Stakeholder register |
Reading the score
Score Yes as 2, Partly as 1, No as 0. Eight or more usually means governance is not your main risk. Below 12 out of 20 means start with the lowest two.
These bands are a working rule of thumb, not a standard. Your own judgement about the committee matters more.
What not to fix first
- Do not rewrite the constitution mid-cycle. Work within it and note changes for the parent body.
- Do not add more meetings. First make existing meetings produce logged decisions.
- Do not create a long policy. A one-page table that people use is better.
Worked example · Fictional example
A fictional association scores its conference governance
Fictional organisation and scores. Illustrative only.
The fictional Persatuan Fiktif Pengurus Latihan answered the ten questions with the chair, secretariat head and treasurer. They agreed on four items but split on three, and those split items were the finding.
The chair believed approvals took two days. The treasurer reported seven. Decision rights were written but not known. They fixed questions 2 and 4 first by naming deputies and agreeing response times, and logged both in the decision log.
| Area | Chair | Secretariat | Treasurer | Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Accountable roles (Q1) | Yes | Partly | Partly | Review RACI rows |
| Decision rights (Q2) | Yes | No | No | Share and confirm |
| Approval times (Q4) | Yes | No | No | Agree days and deputies |
| Handover (Q8) | Partly | Partly | Partly | Prepare checklist |
Use this yourself
Event governance health check sheet
Copy this and score it with two or three people separately. Compare, then decide.
- Score Yes = 2, Partly = 1, No = 0.
- Record every disagreement between scorers.
- Choose the lowest one or two areas and name an owner and date for each fix.
- Re-run after the next milestone.
| # | Question | Scorer 1 | Scorer 2 | Scorer 3 | Fix owner and date |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | One accountable role per key task? | ||||
| 2 | Decision rights and limits written down? | ||||
| 3 | Escalation route known? | ||||
| 4 | Approval response times and deputies? | ||||
| 5 | Written terms of reference? | ||||
| 6 | Decisions logged? | ||||
| 7 | Co-host split in writing (if relevant)? | ||||
| 8 | Handover within a week possible? | ||||
| 9 | Workloads realistic? | ||||
| 10 | Stakeholder contacts clear? |
Handle it in-house, or bring in help?
Your team can usually handle this when
- Your committee can answer honestly and agree on two fixes.
- The event is mid-sized with a stable group.
- Gaps are small and quick to close.
Outside planning help earns its fee when
- Answers differ widely and the committee cannot settle them.
- Several organisations co-host, and each answers differently.
- Fixes need someone to run them rather than just recommend them.
Want the gaps closed, not just listed?
A conference project lead can run the health check with your committee, turn the lowest scores into a short fix plan with owners and dates, and then build the RACI, decision-rights and escalation tables with you. Decisions on your own governing rules stay with your committee and its advisers.
Questions organisers ask
Who should answer the questions?
Two or three people with different roles. Compare their answers, because the differences are the useful part.
How often should we repeat it?
After each major milestone, or when committee members change.
Is the scoring a standard?
No. It is a working guide. Use it to choose where to start, not to rate your committee.
Related resources
Content record: Draft. Written from the cited sources and checked by automated rules; not yet independently reviewed.