Change Log
A handbook-style change log with field guidance, workflow, review checks and source-derived example evidence.
What this artefact controls
Change Log should be treated as a decision instrument, not as paperwork completed for its own sake. Its practical value comes from making the underlying decision, evidence, ownership and review cycle visible. In this handbook, the supplied source structure is retained as the factual basis while the surrounding guidance explains how to complete, review and maintain it in day-to-day project delivery.
The source set repeatedly links project documents to broader control relationships: scope creates the work to be scheduled and costed; resources execute that work; stakeholders influence acceptance and change; risk captures uncertainty; quality establishes evidence of conformance; and performance information explains whether the project is still moving toward its intended outcome. Change Log belongs in that integrated system. It should therefore use identifiers and terminology consistent with adjacent project records so that a reviewer can trace a decision across documents without relying on memory.
Before filling any field, write one sentence describing the decision or control action the completed artefact must support. Then identify the accountable owner, contributors, reviewers, approval authority and next review trigger. This prevents a common failure in project documentation: every box is filled, but nobody can explain what decision the document enables or who must act when conditions change.
How the information fits together
This visual is an HTML/CSS interpretation for the KEVOS article reader. It conveys the decision structure without embedding the supplied source artwork as a screenshot.
Complete the template with traceable information
The following field map is extracted from the supplied blank or completed source document where text was available. Wording has been normalised for web readability, but the source structure remains the basis. Where a field is not applicable, record why rather than silently leaving a potentially important control blank.
| Source field / section | What to record | Review test |
|---|---|---|
| CHANGE LOG | Record the minimum evidence needed for change log to support the control whether a proposed alteration is understood, assessed, authorised and traceable before it changes an approved baseline. | The entry is specific, traceable and reviewable. |
| projects. | Record the minimum evidence needed for projects. to support the control whether a proposed alteration is understood, assessed, authorised and traceable before it changes an approved baseline. | The entry is specific, traceable and reviewable. |
| ID | Assign a unique, stable identifier that can be referenced from reports, changes, risks, requirements or evidence. | The entry is specific, traceable and reviewable. |
| Category | Record the minimum evidence needed for category to support the control whether a proposed alteration is understood, assessed, authorised and traceable before it changes an approved baseline. | The entry is specific, traceable and reviewable. |
| Description of Change | Write an observable, specific statement that a reviewer outside the drafting team can understand without verbal explanation. | The entry is specific, traceable and reviewable. |
| Requestor | Record the minimum evidence needed for requestor to support the control whether a proposed alteration is understood, assessed, authorised and traceable before it changes an approved baseline. | The entry is specific, traceable and reviewable. |
| Submission | Record the minimum evidence needed for submission to support the control whether a proposed alteration is understood, assessed, authorised and traceable before it changes an approved baseline. | The entry is specific, traceable and reviewable. |
| Status | Use a small defined status set and apply it consistently; status should reflect current reality, not desired progress. | Status matches evidence and next action. |
| Disposition | Record the minimum evidence needed for disposition to support the control whether a proposed alteration is understood, assessed, authorised and traceable before it changes an approved baseline. | The entry is specific, traceable and reviewable. |
| Disp. Date | Use an unambiguous date and make clear whether it is the preparation, approval, review or event date. | Date meaning and calendar are unambiguous. |
Blank web-ready structure
This compact version is designed for copying into a project working note or for translating into your organisation’s controlled form. It is not a claim that these are the only fields required by every organisation, contract or jurisdiction.
What the uploaded example demonstrates
The source set uses a recurring worked project — Mary’s Consulting and its new company website — to show how project artefacts connect. The examples are useful because the same scope, team, costs, risks, stakeholders and milestones recur across multiple forms, allowing the reader to see how one project decision propagates through the documentation system. Any numerical value below is a source example or a calculation explicitly identified as such; it should not be treated as a universal project standard.
- CR-001 Schedule Move kickoff meeting from Apr 28 to May 8 to accommodate Andrew (PM) Apr 25, 2026 Closed Approved Apr 25, 2026
- CR-003 Scope Add real-time chat widget to website (third-party integration). Sales Lead Jul 12, 2026 Closed Rejected Jul 18, 2026
- CR-004 Scope Add LinkedIn-link field to consultant directory. Sales Lead Aug 28, 2026 Closed Deferred (Phase 2) Aug 28, 2026
- CR-005 Cost Negotiate 5-seat legacy CMS pricing in year 1; 10-seat from year Bob (Tech Lead) Aug 22, 2026 Closed Approved Aug 22, 2026
- CR-006 Quality Update brand color tokens to fix WCAG contrast issues found in Bill (UX) Sep 4, 2026 Closed Approved Sep 4, 2026
- CR-007 Scope, Cost, Schedule Add Press / Media section to website (2 pages, 15 items at Mary (Sponsor) Sep 13, 2026 Closed Approved Sep 16, 2026
- CR-008 Scope, Requirements, Add LinkedIn icons linking to consultant profiles on each bio card Marketing Lead Oct 15, 2026 Closed Approved Oct 17, 2026
- Summary: 8 change requests received. 6 Approved, 1 Rejected, 1 Deferred to Phase 2. All requests dispositioned within the timing required by the Change Management Plan (within 5
Step-by-step workflow
For controlled project records, the final step is not “save the file”. The final step is to make the current approved state discoverable, communicate the decision to affected people and define the next review trigger. That trigger may be a phase gate, threshold breach, approved change, new stakeholder, supplier event, forecast movement, risk trigger or a scheduled review date.
Review checklist before approval or use
- The request is specific enough that two reviewers interpret the same change.
- Impacts are stated against current baselines, not against memory.
- Alternatives and consequences of rejection are visible.
- Approval authority matches the value and risk of the change.
- Implementation actions have owners and due dates.
- Superseded documents are identifiable and retained according to document-control rules.
Run the review from the perspective of a competent person who did not attend the drafting meeting. If they cannot reconstruct the basis, current state and required next action from the record and its cited evidence, the artefact is not yet controlled enough for a material decision.
Common mistakes and recovery actions
Treating a change discussion as an approval.
Recovery: return to the approved objective or baseline, identify the missing evidence or decision owner, and record the corrective action before proceeding.
Assessing cost but ignoring schedule, quality or risk effects.
Recovery: return to the approved objective or baseline, identify the missing evidence or decision owner, and record the corrective action before proceeding.
Allowing work to start before the decision is recorded.
Recovery: return to the approved objective or baseline, identify the missing evidence or decision owner, and record the corrective action before proceeding.
Updating the deliverable but not the baseline documents.
Recovery: return to the approved objective or baseline, identify the missing evidence or decision owner, and record the corrective action before proceeding.
Closing the request without confirming the change was implemented as authorised.
Recovery: return to the approved objective or baseline, identify the missing evidence or decision owner, and record the corrective action before proceeding.
Keep the document alive after first approval
A project artefact is only useful while its status is known. Give it a unique identifier, version, owner, approval state and effective date. Define what types of change require reapproval and what updates can be made administratively. Retain superseded versions when the record is needed to explain a historical decision, claim, audit, acceptance or lesson.
Use the document in reviews by focusing on exceptions and decisions rather than reading every field aloud. Ask what has changed since the last review, what assumption has been invalidated, what threshold has been crossed, which decision is now due and which action remains without an owner. This converts the artefact from static documentation into a control mechanism.
At hand-off, confirm that downstream users can interpret the identifiers, units, assumptions and status values without relying on the original author. For project close-out, make sure unresolved items have an operational owner and a clear retention location. A closed project should not leave behind orphaned risks, undocumented support obligations, unverified benefits or ambiguous acceptance evidence.
Source basis and limitations
This page is an original KEVOS handbook synthesis grounded in the uploaded source files. It intentionally paraphrases and restructures the material for practical application rather than reproducing the source documents as images. Where the source contains an illustrative project value, that value remains an example. Where a required blank source was absent, the limitation is stated explicitly rather than silently inventing a missing form.
- PMBOK+8+Plans+and+Documents/Assess and Implement changes/Change_Log_BLANK.pdf
- PMBOK+8+Plans+and+Documents/Assess and Implement changes/Change_Log_FILLED.pdf
Current authoritative context used for the reference pages: Project Management Institute, PMBOK® Guide — Eighth Edition and the 2026 PMP Examination Content Outline. The article package does not reproduce substantial PMI publication text.