This service request process checklist gives you ten checks for a request and approval route that already runs. Each one is marked from a record you can open today, next to the name of the person who checked it. Sample recent requests of each common type, then fix the approval checks first.
Last reviewed 2026-11-08 by Manish Sharma.
A service request is an everyday ask for access, a software title or a piece of equipment that someone has to decide on or carry out by hand. These checks cover those requests and the approvals around them. However, incidents, desk handling and periodic access reviews have checks of their own. For the reasons behind a poor mark, read why requests wait between people before anyone acts.
We wrote it for IT heads and service desk leads in India and the GCC with a route in daily use. Run it after a change of approvers, before an internal audit, or a quarter after the route went live.
How the Service Request Process Checklist Is Marked
Every check gets a mark of 2, 1 or 0, judged separately for each request type in your sample.
- Shown, worth 2: the record exists, it is current, and it agrees with what the check asks for that type.
- Partly shown, worth 1: a record exists, but it is out of date or disagrees in part.
- Not shown, worth 0: nothing turns up, or the record shows the opposite of what the check asks.
A check then takes the lowest mark among its types. Take check 6. On an open software request, the requester’s page names the approver who holds it and says fulfillment comes next. A laptop request also shows the same. An access request, however, only says “In progress”, with no holder named. That type earns a 1, and so check 6 as a whole takes a 1.
Mark a check “Does not apply” only when no such case came up in the window, for example check 9 when nobody received temporary access. Write the reason beside it. The maximum then drops by 2. The full sheet comes to 20. No total counts as passing; what matters is the change from one round to the next.
Choosing Which Requests to Open
Start with the three request types that need a yes and arrived in the largest numbers last quarter. From each type, take the latest five requests closed in the last 60 days, in date order, with none picked or skipped. Five per type and a 60-day window are Signisys suggestions, and a desk with higher volumes can take more.
If a type closed fewer than five requests in the window, take all of them.
That gives up to 15 requests. Checks 2, 4, 7 and 8 all read from this set, so you open each request once for all four. The other six checks, however, open records of their own, such as the approval paths, the pre-approved list or the last report.
Draw the sample before anyone starts on the service request process checklist, and write the request numbers at the top of the sheet. The checker named for each check opens the record and writes their name beside the mark. A second reader can then trace any mark back to its record.
Service Request Process Checklist: The Checks and What to Open
The ten checks sit in three tables below. Every row says what to open, what it must show and who checks it. Together they work as an IT service request checklist for a route already in use, covering:
- Catalog coverage of the requests that come in
- The questions an approver needs answered
- A current approver and a backup on each path
- A reminder and a hand-over when approval runs late
- An owner and a date on the pre-approved list
- The holder shown to the requester
- Fulfillment steps that match the work
- The decision on the request record
- A dated removal task for temporary access
- Approval wait shown apart in the report
Mark them in order. The first three show whether requests reach the right person with the right details, and the rest build on that.
Do Common Requests Have an Entry, the Right Questions and a Named Approver?
Checks 1 to 3 ask whether a request arrives complete and lands with someone who can say yes.
| No. | Check | Open this | It must show | Checked by |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Catalog entries match the requests that arrive | The catalog list and last quarter’s closed requests by type | Each high-volume type has an entry in the words staff use, and a note also lists types still arriving by email | Desk lead |
| 2 | Request questions give the approver what they need | The sampled requests | Each holds the business reason and, for access, the access level, none went back for details, and someone checked stock or license first | Desk lead |
| 3 | Every approval path names a current holder and a backup | The approval paths for the sampled types | Each path names today’s holder and a backup who still works here, and if there is a second approver, a written reason says why | IT head |
Leave incidents out of check 1. A request matches a catalog item with a known route, while a fault goes to the incident queue.
On check 2, the NCSC, the UK’s National Cyber Security Centre, writes that an identity and access management policy should state who may reach which systems or data, for what reason, and in which circumstances (2021). The access level field can record that for each request, and with access granted by role it can name the role. A stock or license check before approval also matters, as an approval for an item nobody can supply only adds a wait.
On check 3, if a second approver has no written reason, that step may serve no real risk or compliance purpose.
Does a Waiting Request Move, and Can the Requester See Who Holds It?
Checks 4 to 6 look at the time a request spends waiting, and at what the requester can see meanwhile.
| No. | Check | Open this | It must show | Checked by |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | A late approval gets a reminder and moves on | A sampled request that ran past its approval window | The record shows a reminder and then a move to the backup, each with its date | Desk lead |
| 5 | The pre-approved list has an owner and a date | The pre-approved list and requests for its items | The list names an owner and a last change date, its items went straight to fulfillment, and a note lists items approved every time since | IT head with finance or security |
| 6 | The requester can see who holds the request | One open request, viewed as the requester | The page names the current holder and also the next stage | Marker, as a requester |
If no sampled request ran late, look further back for one before you mark check 4 “Does not apply”.
On check 5, read the note beside the list as closely as the list. An item that gets a yes every time is a candidate for the pre-approved list. By contrast, an item refused again and again may point to a wrong catalog entry. Then bring both to the list owner.
For check 6, the marker reads an open request with requester rights. The status points themselves belong to the build. In this service request process checklist, the only question is whether the page names a holder and a next stage.
Are the Work, the Decision, the End Date and the Report on Record?
Finally, checks 7 to 10 cover what the record holds after someone has decided.
| No. | Check | Open this | It must show | Checked by |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7 | Written fulfillment steps match what was done | The written steps for one standard item and the sampled requests for it | The work followed the steps, and any access given was no wider than the request asked | Fulfiller’s lead |
| 8 | Each decision sits on the request itself | The sampled requests | Each holds yes or no, the approver’s name, and the date and time | Marker |
| 9 | Temporary access carries a dated removal task | Temporary access granted through requests in the window | Each grant has a removal task with a date, and past tasks ran when due | System owner |
| 10 | The request report keeps approval wait apart | The last request report | Times by type, approval wait shown apart from working time, and who read it, on which date | IT head |
On check 7, a request counts as done when the requester can use what they asked for.
Check 8 follows NCSC guidance on tying each action to a person, which says every action in a system should trace back to the person or account that took it.
An approval held only in chat earns a 1 on check 8. Move it onto the request before you mark again.
For check 9, the same NCSC page says to remove or suspend a temporary account once nobody needs it. Who keeps access over time belongs to a periodic review of who still holds access.
Key Takeaway Each mark comes from a record someone opened, and the weakest request type sets the mark for the whole check.
Reading a Service Request Process Checklist Total
Mark all ten checks first, and leave repairs until the sheet is complete. Then work through the marks in the order below.
Put the Approval Checks First
Signisys suggests fixing any 0 on checks 3, 4 and 8 before anything else. Together they decide whether a request reaches someone who can approve it, keeps moving when they are away, and leaves a decision on file.
After those, fix 0s before 1s, with approval checks ahead of the rest within each group. Where you mark more than one site, the site with the lower total goes first once its approval checks are done.
A sheet with 0s across many checks may point to gaps in how the route was built. In that case, fixing one check at a time may not hold, and you can go back to the ten build steps behind approvers and pre-approval.
After a fix, mark only the changed checks again. Run the whole service request process checklist again after an approver change, a change of request tool, or an audit request about who approved access.
A Sample of Software, Finance Access and Laptop Requests
The firm here is invented, and it serves only to show marking and fix order. Its desk sampled three types: a licensed software title, read access to a finance application, and a replacement laptop.
| Check | Mark | What the record showed |
|---|---|---|
| 3 | 0 | The finance access path named no backup after the last one left two months earlier |
| 8 | 1 | One laptop approval sat only in a chat thread |
| 9 | 1 | One removal task for finance access was still open past its date |
| Other seven | 11 of 14 | Checks 1, 6 and 10 took a 1, while the other four took a 2 |
The sheet totals 13 of 20, or 65%. Check 3 comes first, as an approval check at 0. Check 8 follows as an approval check at 1, and then the other 1s on checks 1, 6, 9 and 10.
The desk names a new backup, moves the chat approval onto the request and closes the open removal task. Then it marks checks 3, 8 and 9 again. The 13 is a reading of the records on one date, and it promises nothing about next month.
Key Takeaway A 0 on check 3, 4 or 8 goes to the top of the fix list, whatever the rest of the sheet shows.
Desk Handling, Access Reviews and an Outside Reader
A total of 20 on the service request process checklist means the records exist and agree. Whether the route is well designed, with sensible windows and the right approvers, is a separate question.
The ten checks cover one corner of the wider work, and a full itsm process checklist would need its own checks for incidents, changes and problems. Desk handling has its own sheet, built around testing how the desk handles a ticket once it is logged. Similarly, periodic access reviews sit with the access review owner. Choosing a request tool is a separate decision that none of these checks judges.
An outside reader can help when approvers sit in several countries with different working weeks, or when an audit asks who approved a piece of access. Also, a desk marking its own sheet may stop noticing the workarounds it relies on.
Signisys provides request and operations automation services and consulting and managed IT support, so we have a commercial interest here. To have someone outside the desk read your marked sheet, ask for a review of your request and approval route. No charge, with a fixed scope.
Service Request Process Checklist FAQ
Can the service request process checklist be marked when approvals sit in two systems?
What if a request type is pre-approved and has no approver?
Should equipment requests be marked the same way as access requests?
How should a firm with offices in India and the GCC pick its sample?
Security Insights, Delivered.
Practical, vendor-neutral analysis of threats, tools, and architecture decisions.