How to use this guide
This is general operational guidance for New Zealand SMEs. Adapt it to the business and the decisions involved. It is not a complete compliance checklist, legal opinion or a substitute for advice about a particular situation. Examples are illustrative and do not describe client engagements or promised outcomes.
How much detail is useful?
Match the detail to the significance of the decision and the people who will rely on it. A routine scheduling change may need a short entry; a material project commitment may need linked supporting records and a fuller explanation. State the question first. Include the information that shaped the decision, the alternatives considered and any assumption that could materially change the result.
Identify who made the decision and the source of their authority. Do not turn a discussion note into evidence of approval simply because no one objected. Distinguish participants, contributors and the person accountable for the final choice. If the decision depends on legal, accounting, technical or other specialist advice, identify that dependency and link the authorised advice separately.
How should the record stay reliable over time?
Record the date and status, preserve the supporting sources and limit access where personal or sensitive information is involved. If an important fact changes, add a dated update explaining whether the decision has been revisited. Avoid silently editing a historical record so that it appears the decision-maker knew something they learned later. A useful audit trail explains change without pretending the original uncertainty never existed.
- Capture the question, evidence, options and unresolved assumptions before the decision is recorded as final.
- Confirm the decision, authorised owner, reasons and any conditions attached to implementation.
- Assign follow-up actions and set a review trigger for changes in facts, costs or dependencies.
A working structure
Decision record fields
- Question, date and record status
- Facts, sources and uncertainty
- Options and relevant trade-offs
- Decision-maker and authority
- Decision, reasons and conditions
- Actions, owner and review trigger
Illustrative example
Illustrative example: a business considers changing a supplier to reduce delivery delays. The decision record compares the current problem, the information available about alternatives, the cost assumptions and who can approve the change. It notes that technical suitability still needs checking. The record therefore distinguishes agreement to investigate a new supplier from authority to place an order. A later update records the completed checks and any final commitment separately.
Questions about this guide
Does every conversation need formal minutes?
No. Use proportionate records. The important distinction is whether a decision, commitment, approval or unresolved issue needs to be understood and acted on later. A concise structured entry may be sufficient.
Is this a legal opinion or a board-governance standard?
No. It is a practical operational structure. Formal governance, contractual commitments, disputes and regulated decisions may require different records and specialist advice suited to the situation.
Official sources and further guidance
These primary sources provide additional context. The operational suggestions and working outlines above are YJ Consulting’s general guidance; the links do not establish that an authority has endorsed this guide.
When YJ Consulting can help
YJ Consulting can help an Auckland or New Zealand SME map the current practice, organise the relevant records and turn the findings into an agreed improvement plan. The engagement starts by confirming the question, responsible adviser, information available and useful outputs. Legal, payroll, financial or other specialist questions should be identified and assigned separately.
Explore the relevant service · Service-scope information · Book an initial conversation