Change Impact Assessment

Change Impact Assessment

Primary Category: Execution Governance & Organizational Risk

Secondary Focus: Dependency Analysis, Risk Mitigation, and Transformation Oversight

Artifact Profile

Change Impact Assessment: Evaluate Downstream Effects is a governance artifact for understanding how modifications to data, assumptions, models, processes, or policies ripple across an organization. It makes the consequences of change visible before action is taken, reducing unintended disruption and improving decision integrity.

Using your proposed change, affected inputs, dependencies, and decision contexts, the artifact produces a structured view of what will be impacted. Rather than implementing updates in isolation, it traces how changes propagate through operations, controls, stakeholders, and outcomes.

This artifact is built for executives, risk and compliance leaders, transformation teams, and governance bodies who must manage change in complex environments. It supports proactive mitigation, coordinated execution, and stronger operational resilience.

Three Key Questions This Artifact Helps You Answer

• What decisions, processes, risks, and stakeholders will be affected if we make this change?

• Where could indirect or cascading effects create operational, financial, or compliance risk?

• How should we mitigate, govern, or coordinate this change before implementation?

What This Framework Supports

This artifact supports organizations seeking:

• Clear visibility into how proposed changes affect decisions, processes, controls, and stakeholders

• Identification of indirect, cascading, and second-order impacts before implementation

• Reduction of operational, financial, compliance, and reputational risk from uncoordinated change

• Stronger governance of high-impact updates across data, systems, policies, and operating models

How It Is Used

The artifact provides a structured change impact governance framework that guides executives, risk leaders, transformation teams, and governance bodies through:

• Defining the proposed change and the inputs, assumptions, or processes it modifies

• Tracing dependencies across decisions, workflows, controls, and stakeholders

• Assessing operational, financial, risk, and compliance consequences

• Producing mitigation actions, coordination requirements, and governance recommendations prior to implementation

This enables organizations to treat change as a governed decision problem, making downstream effects visible and actionable before disruption occurs.

What This Produces

• List of affected decisions, processes, and stakeholders

• Assessment of operational, financial, risk, and compliance impacts

• Identification of indirect and cascading effects

• Recommended mitigations, approvals, and governance actions

Common Use Cases

• Assessing the impact of changes to data sources, models, or assumptions

• Evaluating policy, control, or process modifications before rollout

• Managing change in regulated, safety-critical, or audit-sensitive environments

• Identifying unintended consequences across interconnected decisions

• Coordinating reviews and approvals for high-impact updates

How This Artifact Is Different

Unlike change management focused on communication and rollout, this artifact treats change as a governance problem. It explicitly traces dependencies and consequences, enabling organizations to anticipate risk, coordinate action, and avoid downstream disruption before implementation.

Related Framework Areas

This artifact is commonly used alongside other SolveBoard frameworks focused on:

• Change governance, portfolio oversight, and transformation planning

• Risk management, compliance governance, and operational resilience

• Dependency mapping, systems analysis, and decision impact tracing

• Executive review, accountability systems, and auditability

Related Terms

Change impact assessment, downstream effects, dependency mapping, risk assessment, governance analysis, operational risk, compliance impact, transformation oversight.

Framework Classification

This artifact is part of the SolveBoard library of structured decision and governance frameworks. It is designed as a repeatable impact analysis and change governance framework rather than a communication plan, rollout checklist, or informal risk review.

Change Impact Assessment: Evaluate Downstream Effects

Structuring how changes to data, assumptions, models, or policies affect decisions, operations, and outcomes using the SolveBoard framework

Definition

Change Impact Assessment is the practice of systematically identifying and evaluating the downstream effects of modifications to data, assumptions, models, processes, or policies. Rather than implementing changes in isolation, this artifact structures how ripple effects are traced across decisions, controls, stakeholders, and outcomes. It operationalizes foresight by making the consequences of change visible before action is taken.

When to Use

• When data sources, models, or assumptions are updated

• When policies, controls, or processes are modified

• When decisions rely on reused or shared inputs

• When unintended consequences could create risk or disruption

When Not to Use

• When changes are trivial and localized

• When no downstream dependencies exist

• When time-critical action precludes analysis

Common Mistakes

• Evaluating change only at the point of modification

• Failing to identify all affected decisions and stakeholders

• Ignoring secondary or indirect effects

Purpose of Change Impact Assessment

This artifact improves governance and operational resilience by anticipating the consequences of change. By mapping how updates propagate through systems, decisions, and controls, it reduces unintended impacts, supports coordinated implementation, and enables proactive mitigation.

How to Apply

• Define the change being proposed or implemented

• Identify all inputs, processes, and decisions affected

• Assess operational, financial, risk, and compliance implications

• Evaluate secondary and cascading effects

• Document mitigation actions and governance requirements

Example Scenario

An organization updates a pricing model to incorporate new cost data. Change impact assessment reveals that the update affects sales forecasts, inventory planning, customer contracts, and risk thresholds. The team identifies which decisions must be revisited, where approvals are required, and how to communicate changes to stakeholders before deployment.

Boundaries

• This artifact does not validate whether the change itself is correct

• It does not replace detailed implementation planning

• It answers one question: What is affected if we make this change?

What This Artifact Does

Identifies and evaluates the downstream effects of changes to inputs, models, processes, or policies.

You Provide

(You may provide some, all, or none of the items below. Partial inputs are valid.)

• Description of the proposed or implemented change

• Affected data sources, models, processes, or policies

• Decisions, controls, and stakeholders that rely on those elements

• Written descriptions or pasted text

• Links to models, documents, or change requests

• Files, PDFs, spreadsheets, images, and other uploads (always acceptable)

• Context notes

Core Question

What decisions, processes, risks, and stakeholders are impacted by this change?

Decision Logic

• If impacts are localized → Proceed with standard controls

• If multiple decisions are affected → Require coordinated review

• If risks or compliance are impacted → Escalate and define mitigations

What the Output Means

• List of affected decisions, processes, and stakeholders

• Assessment of operational, financial, risk, and compliance impacts

• Recommended mitigations and governance actions

Do Not Use When

• Changes are trivial and have no downstream dependencies

• Time constraints prohibit meaningful evaluation

You do not need to complete every section below. Provide only the information you have available or wish to provide. The AI will generate output using only the inputs you supply and will not assume or infer missing information.

Section 1 — Description of the Proposed or Implemented Change

What This Input Represents

The specific change being made to data, assumptions, models, processes, or policies.

If You Have Materials, You May Provide (List file names here in your input document):

• Change requests

• Decision records

• Model or data updates

• Policy revisions

Guiding Questions:

• What change is being proposed or has been implemented?

• Why is this change being made?

• What is the scope of the change (what exactly is modified)?

Section 2 — Affected Inputs, Systems, Processes, or Policies

What This Input Represents

The elements that are directly modified or that depend on the changed element.

If You Have Materials, You May Provide (List file names here in your input document):

• Data inventories

• Process maps

• System architectures

• Policy documents

Guiding Questions:

• Which data sources, models, processes, or policies are affected?

• Which of these are shared or reused across the organization?

• Where could indirect dependencies exist?

Section 3 — Impacted Decisions, Controls, and Stakeholders

What This Input Represents

Who and what relies on the affected elements to make decisions or maintain control.

If You Have Materials, You May Provide (List file names here in your input document):

• Decision catalogs

• Control frameworks

• Stakeholder maps

• Governance documentation

Guiding Questions:

• What decisions depend on the affected elements?

• What controls, approvals, or compliance mechanisms are tied to them?

• Which stakeholders will experience operational, financial, or risk impacts?

Section 4 — Risks, Compliance Implications, and Cascading Effects

What This Input Represents

Potential negative consequences and secondary effects that may arise.

If You Have Materials, You May Provide (List file names here in your input document):

• Risk registers

• Compliance assessments

• Incident reports

• Scenario analyses

Guiding Questions:

• What operational, financial, risk, or compliance impacts could occur?

• What secondary or cascading effects might result from the change?

• What mitigations, approvals, or governance actions may be required?

Section 5 — Supporting Context, Files, and References

What This Input Represents

Any additional information that would help the AI interpret dependencies, risks, and organizational context accurately.

You May Include (List file names here in your input document):

• Change management documentation

• Governance or control frameworks

• Audit or compliance correspondence

• Links to models, data systems, or workflows

• Pasted text or excerpts

Additional Instructions (Optional)

You may add extra instructions to further shape the output, including:

Requesting PDF or other output formats
Limiting page length or response size
Layout preferences (section order, headings, structure, templates)
Specifying tone, style, or format (executive, concise, detailed, formal, etc.)
Output consistency preferences (fixed structure, standardized phrasing, strict formatting)
Prioritization or scoring preferences (how gaps, risks, or actions should be ranked)
Desired mode behavior as outlined in the section below
Any other constraints, rules, or priorities relevant to your use case

If included, the AI will follow these instructions when they do not conflict with the bridge’s execution rules. More specific instructions generally produce more consistent, repeatable, and targeted outputs.

Desired Mode Behavior

Strict Mode

• Maximize determinism and repeatability
• Minimize wording variation, structure changes, and interpretive flexibility
• Do not extend beyond explicit user inputs

Balanced Mode (Default)

• Maintain structure and discipline
• Allow limited analytical judgment where inputs are incomplete
• Do not introduce external assumptions

Exploratory Mode

• Expand hypothesis space and analytical angles
• Surface alternative interpretations and scenario paths
• Still grounded only in user-provided inputs

If no mode is specified, default to Balanced Mode.

What This Enables

Based on your prepared inputs, this artifact will identify all affected decisions, processes, controls, and stakeholders; evaluate operational, financial, risk, and compliance impacts; and recommend mitigations and governance actions before change is finalized or deployed.

Canonical Input Rule (For All SolveBoard Artifacts)

Documents are optional. Sections may be partially completed or left blank. Structured answers to any subset of guiding questions constitute valid input. The AI will evaluate only provided information and will not infer missing content.

AI Execution Instructions

You are operating in Bridge Execution Mode. Follow these rules exactly. Do not reinterpret, summarize, optimize, or override them. Do not introduce external knowledge, assumptions, or inferred content. Evaluate only user-provided inputs. If required information is missing or ambiguous, flag it rather than guessing. Output must follow the defined Output section exactly.

Users may provide some, all, or none of the input sections. Process only what is explicitly provided. Treat empty sections as intentionally omitted.

Purpose

Identify and evaluate downstream effects of changes to inputs, models, processes, or policies.

What This Bridge Answers

What will be affected if we make this change, and how should we manage the consequences?

Inputs (All Optional)

• Description of the change

• Affected data, models, processes, or policies

• Decisions, controls, and stakeholders that depend on them

• Files, PDFs, spreadsheets, images, links, or other uploaded material

• Context notes

Note: Output Quality and specificity scale with input completeness. The user has been informed of this via the input sheet.

Processing Rules

A valid change impact assessment must satisfy all of the following:

• Direct and indirect impacts are identified

• Affected decisions and controls are explicitly listed

• Risks, compliance issues, and mitigations are documented

When inputs are sparse:

• Produce the most complete output possible with available data

• Explicitly flag what's missing and how additional inputs would enhance the analysis

• Do not infer or assume missing information

Execution Steps

• Define the change and scope

• Inventory all affected inputs, processes, and decisions

• Assess operational, financial, risk, and compliance impacts

• Identify secondary and cascading effects

• Document mitigations, approvals, and governance actions

Output

• List of impacted decisions, processes, and stakeholders

• Assessment of risks and operational consequences

• Recommended mitigation and governance steps

Failure Conditions / Misuse

• Ignoring indirect or cascading effects

• Implementing changes without documenting impacts

Mode Behavior (From Input Sheet)

Strict Mode

• Maximize determinism and repeatability
• Minimize wording variation, structure changes, and interpretive flexibility
• Do not extend beyond explicit user inputs

Balanced Mode (Default)

• Maintain structure and discipline
• Allow limited analytical judgment where inputs are incomplete
• Do not introduce external assumptions

Exploratory Mode

• Expand hypothesis space and analytical angles
• Surface alternative interpretations and scenario paths
• Still grounded only in user-provided inputs

If no mode is specified, default to Balanced Mode.

Additional Instruction Governance

User-provided additional instructions must be followed exactly unless they conflict with core Bridge Execution Rules. If a conflict exists, Bridge Execution Rules take priority.

Additional instructions may control format, tone, structure, length, or ordering, but must not introduce inferred content, external knowledge, or speculative assumptions.

If instructions are ambiguous, flag ambiguity rather than guessing.

Additional Instructions Execution Rule

If the user provides instructions in the Additional Instructions field, they are binding execution constraints.

Failure to follow them constitutes a Bridge Execution Failure.

Reminder to AI: If a format is requested (e.g., PDF, DOCX), the final output MUST be delivered in that format.

Artifact Instructions

This guide explains what information the Change Impact Assessment artifact requires and how to prepare your inputs.

How to Prepare Your Input Document (Required Format)

Create a new Word (or similar) document.
Copy all text from the Input Sheet tab into the document.
Save it — this is now your Input Document.
Answer the guiding questions directly in the Input Document and reference any supporting files there.
Save the completed Input Document (Word, PDF, etc.).
Copy all text from the Bridge AI Prompt tab and paste it into the prompt field.
Attach the completed Input Document and any referenced files when submitting the prompt.

No Supporting Files? No Problem.

You can proceed without uploading any supporting documents, spreadsheets, dashboards, reports, or other attachments.

The Input Document is still required, but it may contain only plain-text answers to the guiding questions.

Written responses alone are sufficient for the AI to generate output.

Supporting files, links, and pasted materials are always optional.

Missing Inputs Are OK

You do not need to complete every section.
You do not need supporting files.

The AI will still run. It will:

Use only the inputs you provide
Skip or flag missing sections
Never fail due to incomplete information

Output quality scales with input depth — but execution never breaks.

Submitting Files

If you upload files, list each file name under the relevant “If You Have Materials” section in your Input Document. This ensures each file is clearly tied to its intended use.

What to Expect From This AI Bridge

This bridge generates a structured, high-value starting point, not a guaranteed final deliverable. Output quality improves as inputs become clearer, deeper, and more complete.

This artifact supports iteration. Users are encouraged to refine inputs, test variations, and rerun the bridge to improve results.

The AI organizes complexity and accelerates insight — but final judgment and decisions remain with the user.

In Short

Stronger inputs → stronger outputs
Iteration improves results
Cross-artifact testing can reveal new perspectives
This artifact enables progress, not perfection