Define the work.
Name the work unit and its start, review and finish events. Record active work separately from elapsed time.
Free Expert Assessment · Deliverable preview
See what you'll have
in your hands.
A clear account of where one workflow slows down, what the evidence says, and what your team can do next.
Two consultations are included. You receive the written report before the findings call.
The collection kit
Start with work
your team already does.
We agree the workflow, owner and collection period at intake, then give your team instructions, definitions, an example and a template. Existing records can answer some questions immediately.
Keep unfinished items.
A queue can look fast if you only count what leaves it. Include open work and the reasons it is waiting.
Collect through agreed channels.
Use anonymous work IDs in the template. Agree handling and access before sharing client records or sensitive material.
How to use the example and collection sheet
The example follows ten items from October 5 through October 9, ending at 5 p.m. local time. The same workflow owner records each item's status at that cutoff. Use one agreed time zone in your own sheet.
Use a work ID instead of a client name. “Received” is when the item enters the workflow; “submitted for review” is when its preparer says it's ready; “first review” is the first accept-or-return decision. An item can be submitted as ready and still have missing inputs.
Record active minutes separately from timestamps, and record the return or wait reason. Leave an event blank when it hasn't happened. A completed item has met the agreed acceptance bar; an open item remains in the sample. Work type and complexity help compare like with like.
Worked example · Illustrative data
The queue looked like
a reviewer shortage.
This example shows the format and reasoning. Its numbers demonstrate the method; they aren't a client result or a forecast for your business.
Expert AssessmentWorkflow: first review
10Items in the sample
4Returned for missing inputs
2Still awaiting a first review
What the evidence shows
Reviewers were receiving work before it was ready.
Four of the eight reviewed items came back because required inputs were missing. Two more were still waiting when collection ended, so their final turnaround remained open.
The likely local bottleneck
Check readiness before adding review capacity.
Missing inputs are creating repeat review. But the sample doesn't yet establish whether staffing or work complexity also limits throughput. Compare complete and incomplete items by complexity and reviewer before making that decision.
The first test
Put one readiness check before the queue.
The workflow owner defines the required inputs with a reviewer. Test that check on the next comparable set of work, tracking first-pass acceptance, reviewer minutes, queue age and completed items. Keep the quality acceptance bar unchanged.
What your team would need
A small process test with a named owner.
For this example, allow 2 to 3 hours for the workflow owner to define the check, 1 to 2 hours for a senior reviewer to validate it and 1 to 3 hours for an analyst to configure the log. No new software purchase is assumed.
That is 4 to 8 setup hours, plus recording time during the test and a weekly review by the owner. At an illustrative loaded rate of $100/hour, setup staff time is $400 to $800; it isn't an outside fee or a cash saving. Your estimate uses your actual rates, access, skills and tools.
The findings consultation
Read it first.
Work through it together.
You'll have the report before we meet. We explain the evidence, competing explanations and practical next step, then help your team decide how to act.
You can carry out the recommendation internally. If the business needs a broader investigation and implementation, we can discuss a paid engagement.
See how an engagement works ↗