Change and release management governance

The change and release management governance requirement under ISO/IEC 20000 expects you to control service changes and releases so they are assessed, approved, implemented, and reviewed in a way that reduces disruption risk ¹. Operationalize it by defining change types and approval authorities, enforcing pre-change risk/impact assessment, keeping complete records, and proving post-implementation review for meaningful changes.

Key takeaways:

• Define governance (roles, approval thresholds, emergency paths) and make teams follow it consistently.
• Require change assessment, approval, and post-implementation review records for audit-ready evidence.
• Tie releases to change records, testing evidence, and a back-out plan to prevent outages and failed deployments.

Change and release management governance is one of those requirements that looks “process-heavy” until you get the first incident rooted in an uncontrolled change. ISO/IEC 20000’s intent is straightforward: changes to services and releases into production must be controlled to reduce disruption risk ¹. For a Compliance Officer, CCO, or GRC lead, the practical question is not “do we have a Change Management policy,” but “can we prove, quickly, that changes were assessed, approved by the right authority, implemented in a controlled manner, and reviewed afterward.”

This page translates the change and release management governance requirement into an execution plan you can put in front of engineering, IT operations, and service owners without losing the thread. You’ll get: a plain-English interpretation, applicability guidance, step-by-step implementation, required artifacts, common audit questions, and mistakes that break otherwise decent programs. Where possible, it also flags how this control typically fails in real operations (informal approvals, missing evidence, and “emergency” changes that become the default).

Target keyword: change and release management governance requirement.

Regulatory text

Provided excerpt (summary form): “Baseline implementation-intent summary derived from publicly available framework overviews; licensed standard text is not reproduced in this record.” The operational summary captured for this requirement is: control service changes and releases to reduce disruption risk ¹.

What the operator must do:
You need governed mechanisms for requesting, assessing, approving, scheduling, implementing, and reviewing changes and releases that affect services. The governance must be consistent and evidenced. Auditors will look for demonstrable control, not just written intent, so your records matter as much as your policy.

Plain-English interpretation (what this requirement really means)

If a change can affect a service (availability, security, performance, customer impact, contractual commitments), it must go through a defined path:

1. someone requests it,
2. someone assesses risk and impact,
3. an authorized person or group approves it,
4. it is implemented with controls (testing, rollback/back-out, comms where needed), and
5. the outcome is reviewed and recorded.

“Release management” is the production deployment side of the same coin. In practice, you will treat releases as packaged changes: a release should map to one or more approved change records, and you should be able to prove what went out, when, and under what approval.

Who it applies to

Entity types: IT service providers and any organization operating an IT service management system aligned to ISO/IEC 20000 ¹.

Operational context (where this shows up):

• Internal IT (enterprise IT delivering employee-facing services).
• External customer-facing services (SaaS, managed services, hosting, MSP/MSSP functions).
• Material third parties performing changes on your behalf (outsourced infrastructure, managed app support). If a third party executes production changes, you still need governance, evidence, and oversight that the process was followed.

What you actually need to do (step-by-step)

Use this sequence to operationalize the change and release management governance requirement quickly.

1) Set governance scope and definitions

• Define “change” in operational terms: any modification to production or service-affecting components (config, code, infrastructure, access rules, routing, data pipelines, monitoring rules).
• Define “release”: a deployment package or production promotion event (often bundling multiple changes).
• Define change types: standard (pre-approved, low risk), normal, emergency.
• Set “materiality” triggers (what requires stricter controls): customer impact, security impact, production downtime risk, contractual/SLA impact, regulated data impact.

Deliverable: a one-page Change & Release Governance Standard that engineering and IT ops can follow.

2) Assign roles and approval authority (make it auditable)

At minimum, define:

• Change requester (who initiates).
• Change owner/implementer (responsible for execution).
• Approver(s) (service owner, CAB, security, operations).
• Change manager (process owner; can be ITSM lead).
• Release manager (if separate; responsible for coordinating deployments).
• Back-out authority (who can halt/revert during release).

Practical tip: Approval rules must be deterministic. If “management approval” is vague, auditors will treat it as “no defined control.”

3) Build a minimum viable workflow in your system of record

You need a system of record where change requests and approvals live (an ITSM tool, ticketing system, or controlled workflow). Configure fields that force evidence capture:

• Change description and rationale
• Services/components impacted
• Risk/impact assessment
• Test plan / validation steps
• Implementation plan and timing
• Back-out plan
• Approvals (who/when)
• Post-implementation review (PIR) notes and outcome

If your org deploys via CI/CD, connect releases to these records by embedding the change ID in commits, pull requests, or deployment metadata. The goal: a clean audit trail from request → approval → deployment → review.

4) Require change assessment, approval, and post-implementation review records

This is the core operational control reflected in the provided best-practice guidance: require change assessment, approval, and post-implementation review records ¹.

Minimum expectations you should enforce:

• Before implementation: documented assessment and documented approval by the defined authority.
• After implementation: documented verification of outcome and whether incidents occurred; if something failed, document corrective actions.

5) Put guardrails around emergency changes

Emergency changes are allowed in most mature programs, but they are also the easiest loophole.

• Define what qualifies as an emergency (service restoration, active security issue).
• Require after-the-fact approval and PIR within your internal standard.
• Track emergency changes separately and review trends. Repeated “emergencies” often indicate weak planning or release discipline.

6) Govern releases as packaged, controlled events

For each production release, require:

• Link to one or more approved changes
• Deployment plan (who, what, when)
• Verification checks (smoke tests, monitoring checkpoints)
• Rollback/back-out plan
• Communications plan where customer impact is plausible

Keep the release record lightweight, but complete. Auditors do not need your whole CI/CD pipeline; they need evidence that releases are controlled and traceable.

7) Implement monitoring and oversight (the “governance” part)

Governance means you can tell whether the process is being followed and correct it.

• Weekly or biweekly review of a sample of changes for completeness.
• Review of failed changes and repeat incidents tied to change.
• Exceptions process: what you allow, who approves exceptions, and how you track closure.

If you use Daydream to manage third-party risk and operational compliance mapping, treat change/release governance as a requirement with explicit evidence requests. That helps you standardize what internal teams and third parties must produce (tickets, approvals, PIRs) and reduces scramble during audits.

Required evidence and artifacts to retain (audit-ready)

Keep these artifacts in an accessible repository with retention aligned to your internal policy:

• Change & Release Management policy/standard (current, approved, versioned)
• RACI / role definitions for change and release approvals
• Change records (including risk/impact assessment, approvals, implementation details)
• Release records with linkage to changes and deployment outcomes
• Post-implementation reviews (especially for high-impact or failed changes)
• Emergency change logs with justification and after-the-fact approvals
• Exception approvals and remediation tracking
• Evidence of oversight (meeting notes, CAB decisions, sampling results)

A common audit failure: teams can describe the process verbally, but cannot produce complete records consistently.

Common exam/audit questions and hangups

Expect auditors to ask questions like:

• “Show me three recent production changes. Where is the risk assessment, approval, and PIR?”
• “How do you define emergency versus normal changes?”
• “Who has authority to approve changes to customer-impacting services?”
• “How do releases map to approved changes?”
• “How do you prevent bypassing the process (direct production changes)?”
• “How do you handle changes performed by third parties?”

Hangups that slow audits:

• Approvals recorded in chat tools with no durable linkage to change tickets
• PIRs done informally and not retained
• “Standard changes” treated as a blanket exemption with no evidence of pre-approval criteria

Frequent implementation mistakes and how to avoid them

1. Mistake: Policy exists, workflow doesn’t.
   Fix: Implement required fields and approval steps in the system of record so evidence is generated as part of doing the work.

2. Mistake: Everyone is an approver (or no one is).
   Fix: Publish approval thresholds by service criticality and change type. Tie them to named roles, not job titles that change every quarter.

3. Mistake: Emergency change becomes the default lane.
   Fix: Define emergency criteria and enforce after-the-fact review. Track repeat offenders and drive root-cause fixes (capacity, testing, release cadence).

4. Mistake: Releases are disconnected from change control.
   Fix: Require change IDs in release records and deployment metadata. If a release bundles many changes, list them or attach the query output from your tool.

5. Mistake: Third parties can change production without your governance.
   Fix: Contractually require adherence to your change governance (or equivalent), then sample their change records as part of oversight.

Enforcement context and risk implications

No public enforcement cases were provided in the supplied source catalog, so this page does not cite specific regulatory actions.

Operational risk is still clear: weak change and release governance increases the likelihood of outages, security regressions, and unplanned work. From a compliance standpoint, the recurring issue is insufficient implementation evidence: you cannot demonstrate that changes were controlled if you cannot produce assessment, approval, and PIR records on demand ¹.

Practical 30/60/90-day execution plan

First 30 days: establish minimum viable governance

• Appoint a change process owner and release process owner.
• Publish a one-page governance standard: change types, approval thresholds, emergency definition.
• Configure the system of record with mandatory fields for assessment, approvals, and PIR notes.
• Pilot on one high-visibility service and one internal service; fix friction fast.

Days 31–60: expand coverage and tighten evidence

• Roll out to all production services in scope.
• Implement linkage between deployments and change records (change ID required).
• Start a recurring governance review (sample changes, check completeness, track exceptions).
• Add third-party requirements for any provider with production access or change responsibilities.

Days 61–90: operationalize oversight and resilience

• Normalize PIR discipline: define when PIR is required (failed changes, customer-impacting changes, emergency changes).
• Build a repeatable audit pack: sample change records, release records, PIRs, emergency log, exception log, and governance review notes.
• Run an internal mock audit: pick recent changes and prove end-to-end traceability.
• Use Daydream (if in your stack) to centralize evidence requests and map artifacts to the change and release management governance requirement for faster audits and third-party due diligence.

Frequently Asked Questions

Do we need a formal Change Advisory Board (CAB) to meet the change and release management governance requirement?

ISO/IEC 20000’s intent is controlled changes and releases with evidence ¹. A CAB can work, but you can also meet the requirement with clearly defined approvers, workflow controls, and retained records.

What’s the minimum evidence auditors expect to see for a change?

A complete change record that shows assessment, approval by the defined authority, implementation details, and post-implementation review ¹. If any one of those is missing, the control often fails in practice.

How should we handle CI/CD where deployments happen many times per day?

Keep governance lightweight but traceable: require a change ID tied to the deployment and ensure approvals are captured in an auditable system. For low-risk standard changes, document the pre-approval criteria and keep evidence that each deployment met it.

Can we approve changes in Slack or email?

You can, but it usually creates evidence gaps. If you allow it, you still need a durable record linked to the change ticket that shows who approved and when, plus the associated assessment and PIR.

How do we manage emergency changes without blocking incident response?

Define emergency criteria, allow expedited implementation, then require after-the-fact approval and a post-implementation review recorded in the system of record. Track emergency change patterns and address root causes that drive repeated emergencies.

What if a third party makes changes to systems that affect our services?

Treat the third party as in scope for governance and oversight. Contract for adherence to your change governance (or an equivalent), then periodically request their change, approval, and PIR records as evidence ¹.

Related compliance topics

• 2025 SEC Marketing Rule Examination Focus Areas
• Access and identity controls
• Access Control (AC)
• Access control and identity discipline
• Access control lifecycle management

Footnotes

1. ISO/IEC 20000-1 overview