1. Definition
Reviewing is the structured, periodic process by which the Jigsaw Team steps back and re-examines foundational assumptions, risk posture, goals, and controls to confirm that the system is still fit for purpose. Unlike monitoring, which focuses on whether controls are working as intended in the short run, reviewing asks deeper, structural questions:
- Are our “Whys” (why we manage SAM risk in this way) still valid?
- Are our “Hows” (the controls) still appropriate, given changes in environment, stakeholders, risk exposure, or organizational priorities?
- Do we need to redesign, retire, strengthen, or recalibrate parts of the system?
Reviews are not one-off audits; they are facilitated, cyclical, participatory processes that generate adaptation, learning, and renewed alignment.
2. Purpose of Reviewing Controls
- Validation — Ensure system goals, assumptions, and controls are still relevant to the current reality.
- Adaptation — Surface changes (internal/external) that necessitate redesign or recalibration.
- Learning — Integrate lessons from monitoring, incidents, audits, near-misses, and stakeholder feedback.
- Engagement — Enable structured dialogue with diverse voices so the system retains legitimacy and ownership.
- Defensibility — Provide documented evidence that the organization consciously revisited its safeguarding framework, not simply let it drift.
3. Monitoring vs Reviewing: Two Distinct Feedback Loops
| Feature | Monitoring | Reviewing |
|---|---|---|
| Time horizon | Short-term, operational (weeks, months, up to ~1 year) | Longer-term, strategic (1 to 3 years or triggered reviews) |
| Focus | Control performance, compliance, drift, exceptions | Foundational assumptions, risk posture, goals, control relevance |
| Core question | “Are controls working as intended?” | “Are we managing the right risks? Do our goals still map to emerging realities?” |
| Triggers | Deviations, alerts, metric thresholds, anomalies | Incidents, drifting zones, new programs, environment shifts, feedback |
| Integration point | Built into Jigsaw Team meetings as routine oversight | Embedded in “Why” and “How” cycles and governance / change cycles |
| Role of human judgment | Oversight, corrective tweaks, exceptions handling | Facilitation, questioning, structural redesign, scenario thinking |
Monitoring ensures the system is functioning day by day; reviewing ensures that the system is the right one. Everything eventually gets reviewed; many things are always monitored.
4. What Makes Reviewing Fit-for-Purpose
| Lens | Criteria |
|---|---|
| Strategic Fit | Reviews reconnect the practice to mission, values, and Swans; check that system direction remains valid |
| Operational Fit | Reviews scheduled at realistic intervals; facilitated to avoid defensive dynamics; draw on monitoring, audit, incident, stakeholder data; documented and integrated |
| Lived Experience Fit | Participants experience reviews as meaningful, not punitive; visible adaptations or reaffirmations emerge; diverse voices are included, not dominated by leadership |
5. Examples of Reviews
- System Review: Re-examine Swans, environment, stakeholder expectations, system architecture (every 1–3 years)
- Control Review: Check whether specific controls (e.g., training, intake, behaviors) remain effective, aligned, or need redesign
- Goal Review: Revisit safeguarding goals and key indicators to ensure they still map to top risks
- Learning Review: After a major incident, near-miss, or external disruption, convene a facilitated review to surface lessons and adjust direction
6. Common Strengths & Gaps
Strengths
- Prevents drift and stagnation
- Facilitated review surfaces assumptions and blind spots
- Reviews reaffirm or adjust system direction, increasing credibility
Gaps / Weaknesses
- Reviews become perfunctory checklists, not conversations
- Lack of facilitation leads to defensiveness or superficial insight
- Decisions from reviews not documented or acted on
- Reviews neglected in stable periods, making system lag behind evolving reality
7. Signals of Strong Reviewing
- Reviews occur reliably and on schedule
- Sessions are facilitated with a structured agenda, inclusive participation
- Monitoring/incident/audit data inform but do not dominate the conversation
- Outputs lead to visible changes: revised goals, control redesigns, documented rationales, and action assignments
- Stakeholders report reviews are meaningful, not punitive
- Documentation shows how reviews shaped subsequent improvements
8. Opportunities for Improvement
- Develop internal facilitator capacity or bring in external support
- Use a variety of review formats (scenario tabletop, workshops, stakeholder input)
- Stagger review topics over time so the workload is manageable
- Establish visible feedback loops: participants see how their input drove change
- Tie review outcomes into governance reporting to close the accountability loop
- Include a “review retrospective” in each session: look back at previous review assumptions — which held, which shifted?
9. How Reviewing Is Tracked in Jigsaw
- Jigsaw includes a Review Schedule covering ‘why,’ ‘how,’ and system levels
- Each review is assigned a cadence
- Outcomes (notes, decisions, adaptations, rationales, action items) are versioned, stored, and linked to change logs
- Jigsaw Team Leader or coordinator monitors review occurrence and ensures integration into updates
- Review history becomes part of the defensibility record
Bottom Line
Reviewing keeps the safeguarding system alive, adaptive, and credible. Monitoring ensures the system works; reviewing ensures it’s still the right system. Structurally, reviews reconnect the system to mission, surface shifts in reality, and transform insight into change — but only if they’re meaningful, facilitated, documented, and acted on.