The gap between “almost done” and “approved” is where projects go to die.
Every designer knows the feeling. You’ve nailed the wireframes, the stakeholders seemed happy in the last meeting, and you’re ready to move forward. Then the emails start.
“Can we make the logo bigger?” “I shared this with finance and they have some thoughts.” “Quick question—did we ever resolve that thing from three weeks ago?”
Suddenly your “almost approved” design is floating in limbo, collecting contradictory feedback from people who may or may not have decision-making authority. The project timeline stretches. Momentum dies. And somewhere, a developer is waiting for assets that were supposed to arrive yesterday.
This isn’t a design problem. It’s a process problem.
The Hidden Cost of Undefined Approval Workflows
Most teams don’t think about their approval process until it breaks. And by then, the damage is done:
Timeline inflation. What should take days takes weeks. A study by Workfront found that creative teams spend nearly 30% of their time on administrative work—much of it chasing approvals and consolidating feedback.
Decision fatigue. When everyone can weigh in at any time, no one knows whose opinion matters most. Designers end up trying to please everyone, which usually means pleasing no one.
Version chaos. “Wait, which version are we looking at?” is the unofficial motto of broken approval processes. Without a clear sequence, feedback gets applied to outdated files, changes get lost, and teams waste hours reconciling conflicting edits.
Relationship strain. Nothing erodes trust faster than a stakeholder feeling blindsided by a “final” design they never approved, or a designer feeling undermined by last-minute changes from someone outside the process.
What a Healthy Approval Process Actually Looks Like
The best approval workflows share a few key characteristics:
1. Defined Stages with Clear Gates
Approval shouldn’t be a single yes/no moment at the end. Break your design process into logical phases—concept, wireframe, visual design, final review—with explicit approval gates between them.
Each gate answers a specific question:
- Concept approval: “Does this direction solve the right problem?”
- Wireframe approval: “Does the structure and flow make sense?”
- Visual approval: “Does this look and feel right?”
- Final approval: “Are we ready to build this?”
When you separate these decisions, you prevent the dreaded “I don’t like the color” comment on a wireframe review.
2. Assigned Approvers at Each Stage
Not everyone needs to approve everything. A healthy workflow assigns specific decision-makers to each stage based on their expertise and authority:
- Product owners might approve concepts and user flows
- Brand managers might own visual design sign-off
- Legal or compliance might only need to review final assets
- Executive stakeholders might approve at key milestones only
The key is making these assignments explicit and agreed-upon before the project starts.
3. Time-Boxed Review Periods
Open-ended review invitations are approval killers. “Let me know what you think” translates to “I’ll get to this eventually, maybe.”
Set clear deadlines for each review stage. 48-72 hours is reasonable for most design reviews. Make it clear what happens if the deadline passes without feedback—either the design moves forward as-is, or the project timeline shifts accordingly.
4. Consolidated Feedback Channels
Feedback scattered across email threads, Slack messages, meeting notes, and sticky notes is feedback that gets lost. Establish a single source of truth for each review cycle.
This doesn’t mean eliminating conversation—it means ensuring all decisions and action items land in one place where the designer (and future team members) can reference them.
5. Version Control and Audit Trails
You should always be able to answer: “Who approved what, and when?” This isn’t about blame—it’s about clarity. When questions arise later, you need a clean record of how decisions were made.
Common Approval Anti-Patterns (And How to Avoid Them)
The HIPPO Problem HIPPO stands for “Highest Paid Person’s Opinion.” When a senior executive swoops in late with feedback that overrides weeks of collaborative work, it demoralizes teams and undermines the process.
The fix: Include executive stakeholders early at the concept stage, or establish clear “final call” authority that’s respected regardless of title.
The Infinite Loop Round after round of revisions with no clear end in sight. Each review surfaces new issues, and the goalpost keeps moving.
The fix: Define “done” criteria upfront for each stage. What specific questions need to be answered before approval? If new scope emerges, treat it as a change request, not a revision.
The Ghost Approver A key decision-maker who’s never available, stalling the entire workflow.
The fix: Assign backup approvers with explicit authority. If the primary approver doesn’t respond within the time window, the backup can move the project forward.
The Everyone Approves Model When ten people need to sign off, you’ve created ten potential bottlenecks and invited ten potentially conflicting opinions.
The fix: Distinguish between “approvers” (decision-makers) and “reviewers” (people who can provide input but don’t block progress). Keep the approver list small.
Building Approval Into Your Design Tool Stack
The best process in the world falls apart without the right infrastructure. Your design tools should support—not fight against—your approval workflow.
Look for tools that offer:
- Stage-based organization that mirrors your actual process
- Clear assignment of reviewers and approvers to specific stages
- Built-in feedback collection tied to specific design versions
- Approval status visibility so everyone knows where things stand
- Notification systems that prompt action without creating noise
The goal is reducing friction between “here’s my feedback” and “this is approved”—ideally to a single click.
When to Revisit Your Approval Process
Even good processes need maintenance. Consider a review if you’re experiencing:
- Consistent timeline overruns on the approval phase
- Stakeholder complaints about being left out or surprised
- Designer frustration with contradictory or late-stage feedback
- Difficulty explaining “what happened” when reviewing past projects
- Projects that technically ship but feel unfinished or compromised
A quarterly retrospective on your approval workflow—what worked, what didn’t, what should change—keeps the process evolving with your team.
The Bottom Line
Design approval doesn’t have to be painful. The teams that move fast and ship great work aren’t skipping reviews—they’re running them better. With clear stages, assigned decision-makers, time-boxed reviews, and the right tools, approval becomes a feature of your process, not a bug.
The question isn’t whether you need approval workflows. It’s whether yours are designed as thoughtfully as the products you’re creating.
Claritee is building tools that bring structure and clarity to the design process—including streamlined approval workflows that keep projects moving. [See how it works →]
