Engineering change approvals: How to speed up sign-offs during new product introduction

Engineering changes usually can’t move forward on their own during new product introduction (NPI).

Everything from a slight tweak to a drawing to a full update of the bill of materials needs sign-off from engineering, quality, production, and purchasing before anyone on the floor can act on it. Meanwhile, the launch date stays the same.

Many manufacturers try to manage these approvals by sending change orders as PDFs or tracking sign-offs manually in a spreadsheet. This simplified process can handle occasional changes, but it struggles when many changes are in review during a launch, resulting in three problems:

• Approvals can only happen one at a time: Each reviewer waits for the one before to finish, so a single busy approver holds up everyone after them.
• Handoffs are spread across tools: Files, comments, and approval status live in email, engineering systems, and project management tools, so no one has a complete view of where a change stands.
• Delays surface too late: Pending approvals aren’t connected to the launch schedule, so project managers don’t see the risk until dependent work is ready to start.

Based on our experience working with hundreds of manufacturing companies, these issues result in less time to implement an approved change before launch.

Manufacturing may have to postpone a build, while a late revision can trigger another round of review. Project managers spend more time chasing decisions and have fewer options for keeping the schedule on track.

In this guide, we’ll cover:

• What an engineering change approval is and how ECRs, ECOs, and ECNs fit together
• Why change approvals stall during new product introduction
• How Wrike helps teams route, review, and track change approvals in one place
• How Sonance used Wrike to speed up approvals and reduce launch delays

What is an engineering change approval?

An engineering change approval is the formal review and sign-off that a proposed change must pass before anyone acts on it. It applies to changes in drawings, specifications, bills of materials, and manufacturing processes.

Manufacturers typically manage this with three documents, each marking a different stage of the change.

The approval takes place between the request and the order. Reviewers assess the request, and once they have all signed off, it becomes an order that teams can carry out.

Most changes require input from several departments, which typically means each department views them differently.

For instance, engineering wants to know if the design still works, while Quality checks whether it meets testing and compliance requirements. For these reviews to be useful, everyone needs to be looking at the same version of the file and understand why the change was proposed in the first place.

Every reviewer that gets added to the process creates another handoff. During new product introduction, most of the time is typically lost.

Why change approvals stall during new product introduction

An approval process can look straightforward on paper and still require constant follow-up. During new product introduction, reviewers are fitting change requests around builds, testing, and other launch work. Without clear ownership or visibility, a request can sit untouched, with no one realizing it needs attention.

Problem #1: Approvals wait in a queue

Change orders are usually routed sequentially, so each reviewer waits for the previous one to finish. That works when everyone responds quickly, but reviewers often handle several projects at once, and a change order competes with everything else on their list. If someone is traveling or busy with a build, the request stalls with them, and people further down the line have no idea it’s coming.

Distance can also make delays worse. For instance, if the design team and the factory work in different time zones, each handoff can add another day. A rejection late in the sequence sends the change back to the start, so earlier reviewers have to look at it again.

Problem #2: Handoffs happen across email, PDFs, and separate systems

Engineering may manage drawings and bills of materials in one system, while project plans are handled in another, and approvals happen over email.

Each change order is attached as a PDF, and every reviewer works from the copy that reaches their inbox. When someone requests a revision, the requester must send a new file and ensure no one is still reviewing the old one.

Status updates are just as scattered. Comments are usually kept in separate email threads, while sign-offs are tracked in a spreadsheet. The person who raised the change is often the only one who knows who has approved it and who is next in line.

Unless someone makes those updates, a completed review can still appear as pending, or work can proceed without a clear record of what was approved. Every status update depends on the requester checking in with reviewers one by one, which only becomes more problematic as more departments join the review.

Problem #3: Delays surface too late to protect the launch date

When approval status is tracked separately from the launch schedule, teams may not see the effect of a delay until dependent work is ready to begin.

Manufacturing could be waiting for an approved specification to order tooling, while purchasing needs a confirmed component choice before placing an order. A change introduced close to launch leaves even less room, since any slip in its approval pushes back the work that follows.

Without a clear link between pending approvals and launch milestones, project managers can’t tell which reviews need attention first. By the time a blocked task exposes the problem, there may be little room left to adjust the schedule.

How Wrike speeds up engineering change approvals

Most approval delays trace back to a few points in the process, such as an incomplete request, a review no one knows is pending, a file that changes mid-review, or a pending decision that quietly holds up the build schedule.

Wrike helps manufacturing teams organize change requests and coordinate the reviews needed before implementation. Instead of tracking sign-offs separately from project work, teams can manage approvals alongside the tasks and deadlines those decisions affect.

Below, we’ll walk through how engineering teams can use Wrike at each stage of a change, from the initial request through approval and into the launch schedule.

Capture complete change requests with request forms

Approvals often slow down before the first review begins. An ECR that arrives via email saying “We should switch the bracket to aluminum” omits the part number, the affected drawings, and the reason for the change. Each reviewer then goes back to the engineer with questions, and the request sits idle while they wait for answers.

Wrike request forms collect information at submission and use the answers to populate a task or project. You can make essential questions required and use conditional questions to collect details relevant to a particular change type.

For the bracket change, the form might ask for:

• Affected part numbers and drawing references so that reviewers can find the right files immediately
• The reason for the change, such as weight reduction, cost savings, or a supplier issue
• Expected impact on cost, tooling, and inventory, which helps finance, production, and purchasing assess the change
• Urgency and the related product launch, so the team can prioritize it against other work
• Supporting files, including the current and proposed drawings

Answers can also populate custom fields, helping managers organize requests by product or change type. Reviewers then receive a consistent starting point instead of having to interpret a loosely written email.

Keep the form focused on what reviewers need to make a decision. A form with too many questions can push engineers back to email, which brings back the problem it was meant to solve.

Give every engineering change the same path from request to release

When each change takes its own route, it’s hard to tell whether a request is still being evaluated, awaiting approval, or ready for the factory. Engineers may skip a review they didn’t know was required, and project managers have to ask around to find out where things stand.

Wrike lets teams define one process and apply it to every change:

• Custom workflows: Set statuses such as Requested, In review, Approved, and Released, so everyone sees the same stages.
• Custom item types: Track ECRs, ECOs, and ECNs as separate item types, each with its own fields, such as affected parts or effective date.
• Templates: Start each change with the same review tasks and owners, so steps like quality testing or a supplier check aren’t left out.

A typical change would move from Requested to In review once it’s assigned, then to Approved after every department signs off. The ECN that follows would notify production and purchasing that the new part is taking effect.

Define these stages with engineering, quality, and production before building them in Wrike. A workflow that matches how teams already review changes is easier to follow than one designed in isolation.

Route approval requests to the right people without chasing each handoff

Sequential sign-offs stall when reviewers don’t know a change is waiting for them. The engineer who raised it often ends up tracking who has approved, emailing the next person, and updating a spreadsheet after every response. Each of those steps adds time, and a review can sit idle for days after the previous one is finished.

Wrike’s approval features keep the request and the decision inside the change itself, so reviewers know when their input is needed, and the change owner can see where things stand:

• Approvals in custom workflows can start a review with designated approvers as soon as a change enters a configured status, such as “In review.”
• Multiple approvers allow independent assessments to occur simultaneously, with a due date for each decision.
• Automation rules can notify approvers who haven’t responded or move the change to the next status and assign the next team once approval is complete.

For a change like the aluminum bracket, quality, production, and purchasing can be reviewed simultaneously, since their assessments don’t depend on one another. Every approver must respond before approval is complete. If one review has to happen first, such as an engineering check before a cost review, teams can run separate approvals in order.

Automation then handles the steps between decisions. When the approval status changes to Approved, the change moves to the next status, and the ECN task is assigned to the engineering manager. If it finishes as Rejected, the change returns to the engineer with the reviewer’s comments. This removes the need for someone to monitor each decision and manually pass along the change.

Keep change documents, feedback, and sign-off together

When each department reviews a change in its own email thread, coordinating revisions becomes difficult. Engineering may update a drawing in response to the quality department’s feedback, while the purchasing team continues to review the earlier version. The change owner then has to redistribute the file and check whether previous comments and approvals still apply.

Wrike brings that review activity into the task or project associated with the change. Reviewers can access updated files and discuss revisions in the same place, using:

• File versions: Upload a revision as a new version of an existing attachment, keeping earlier versions available for reference.
• Proofing: Add comments directly to supported files, including PDFs, to identify the specific detail that needs attention.
• File approvals: Assign reviewers, set review deadlines, and track decisions alongside the submitted files.

For example, Quality could flag a tolerance on the aluminum bracket drawing and ask Engineering to confirm it’s suitable. Engineering can answer in context and upload a revised document for review if needed.

All of this information stays with the change, helping other reviewers understand how the question was resolved. It also reduces the risk of someone responding to an attachment that has already been superseded.

Teams can continue maintaining controlled drawings and bills of materials in their engineering systems while using Wrike to coordinate the review and related project work.

Identify pending approvals that could delay the launch

Knowing which approvals are overdue doesn’t tell you which ones threaten the launch. That depends on what needs to happen after sign-off. If purchasing cannot order a component until a change is approved, the review deadline needs to account for the supplier’s lead time and the planned build date.

When approvals are tracked in a separate spreadsheet, those relationships are easy to miss. Wrike helps teams put review tasks into the project schedule so managers can see the work each decision affects:

• Approval dashboards and filters surface pending reviews, their approvers, and due dates.
• Gantt charts place review tasks alongside purchasing activities, planned builds, and launch milestones.
• Task dependencies show which activities rely on a review task being completed.

For instance, if a supplier discontinues a connector a few months before launch, purchasing can’t order the replacement until the change is approved, and the new part may have a lead time of several weeks.

In the Gantt chart, the review task links to the purchase order, which links to the pilot build. When the review slips by a week, the dependent tasks shift with it, and the manager can see the pilot build moving toward the launch milestone.

That view helps managers decide where to spend their follow-up time. A review with plenty of slack before its next dependency can wait, while one that sits directly before a long-lead order needs attention now. Managers can escalate that review, bring in another approver, or adjust the schedule while the launch date can still be protected.

Balance reviewer workloads during launch periods

Approval delays are sometimes due to capacity constraints. The same quality specialist may be reviewing changes for several products while also supporting testing and production. More reminders won’t move things forward if every request needs attention at once.

Wrike’s resource management features help managers account for that work when planning:

• Workload charts show assigned review tasks alongside other scheduled responsibilities.
• Task effort lets teams estimate the time required for an assessment.
• Reassignment and rescheduling help managers adjust task allocations when someone has more work than they can complete.

For example, a quality review of the proposed component might require several hours rather than a quick sign-off. Recording that effort makes the commitment visible alongside the reviewer’s other work. The manager can then consider moving another task or allocating part of the assessment to a qualified colleague.

To use workload planning this way, reviews need to be represented as assigned tasks with effort estimates. Simply adding someone as an approver does not account for the time their review requires.

Reassigning preparation or assessment work also does not automatically transfer approval authority. Any changes to designated approvers should follow the team’s agreed-upon process.

How Sonance cut ECO approvals from three weeks to a few days

Sonance is an architectural and outdoor audio manufacturer based in San Clemente, California. Its product development work is split between teams in California and China, and more than 60 people across marketing, product management, engineering, and operations now use Wrike to manage it.

As the company grew, its product lifecycle process started to break down. The company tracked projects with about 400 tasks across spreadsheets, email, and meetings, and engineering change orders were managed via PDFs and sequential sign-offs. With work scattered across so many places, teams often overlooked launch details until late in development, leading to engineering delays and last-minute firmware updates.