I think the process described has a flaw -- it has the role of "Approver" and requires the Owner to "Run your decision and the process by the Approver." This i

I think the process described has a flaw -- it has the role of "Approver" and requires the Owner to "Run your decision and the process by the Approver." This is problematic, since, at that point, the Approver becomes the new Owner, and, the Decision will be formed in a way that the Owner thinks the Approver will recognize (and perhaps not the form they believe in). In effect, this statement invites micro-management. Interestingly enough, the author knows this approach is problematic, because they say immediately after, "Again, the default of the Approver should be to monitor the decision process, not result." Alternatively, a Vision/Retrospective process might work better, where by the Owner's manager (the business structure) provides the higher-level vision and then looks at the Owner's decisions and executions in retrospective. If the poor decisions are consistently being made, it's a problem of vision or staffing. Asking the owner to get approval for each decision removes the owner's necessary authority, and hence undermines their ability to forge consensus and execute with needed autonomy.