I define a Change Control Board (CCB) as a formal committee that I use to decide on change requests. First, I include client and supplier representatives. Then, I add project managers, developers, testers, IT staff, and sometimes help desk or product marketing. For example, I often include the requirements manager to ensure traceability. In addition, I keep the group small enough to make decisions quickly. Moreover, I give each member a clear role.
Next, I accept change requests through a defined process. First, someone submits a request with a clear description. Then, I require an impact analysis that uses traceability information. For example, I examine affected requirements, architecture, source code, test cases, and training materials. Consequently, I can estimate effort, cost, risk, and timeline. Therefore, I can make an informed decision.
After I review the impact analysis, I use the CCB to decide whether to approve, reject, or postpone the change request. For example, I reject a request when the cost is too high relative to the benefit. Also, I reject requests that contradict other requirements. Furthermore, I reject requests that would endanger system stability. In addition, I reject requests that fall outside existing contracts. However, when a change brings clear benefit and acceptable risk, I approve it.
I always document the CCB decisions. First, I record the rationale for approval or rejection. Then, I store related impact analyses and trace links. Moreover, I share the records with stakeholders for agreement and transparency. Consequently, I maintain traceability and auditability. Thus, I reduce disputes and delays.
After approval, I prioritize accepted change requests. First, I rank adaptive changes by cost and benefit. Next, I rank corrective changes by frequency and effect of the error. In addition, I consider business priorities and release plans. Subsequently, I schedule approved changes for implementation via an existing project or a new project. Finally, I hand the change to Change Management or to the implementation team. In my practice, Change Management owns the implementation responsibility.
I distinguish CCB from a Change Advisory Board (CAB). First, I note that some organizations use the term CAB under ITIL. However, I do not confuse them. For example, a CAB often advises on operational changes and may not have final decision power. By contrast, I use a CCB that holds decision authority for requirements and project-related changes.
I define which types of changes I discuss in the CCB. For example, I handle corrective changes such as specification errors. In addition, I handle adaptive changes such as scope enhancements and tuning requests. Moreover, I set rules for who may submit which types of requests and what templates they must use.
Finally, I design the CCB to keep requirements baselines stable while enabling necessary change. Therefore, I balance control and agility. Consequently, I ensure that changes deliver value without harming system stability or traceability.