Define the decision and its starting point
A request can spend several days waiting for information before anyone is ready to approve it. It can then spend more time waiting for an authorized person to respond. Combining those intervals into one measure makes it difficult to redesign the process. Choose a specific decision category, such as a capital request or a nonstandard customer contract, and define the point at which the proposal is complete enough to assess.
The endpoint also needs an agreed meaning. A recommendation from a committee may still require another signature. A conditional approval may depend on legal review or a revised budget. Record those stages explicitly. The final decision is the authorization that allows the responsible team to act within stated conditions. An email saying that a proposal looks reasonable is a different event and should remain distinguishable in the record.
Reconstruct actual cases
Select cases across business units and different outcomes, including requests that were declined or withdrawn. Use approval records, meeting papers and correspondence to reconstruct the sequence. For each stage, identify the person responsible, the information requested and the reason the case moved onward. Ask participants to check the sequence. Memory can help explain a delay, but time stamps and version histories provide a firmer basis for measuring it.
Separate active assessment from waiting. A technical review may legitimately require substantial work; a completed assessment waiting for the next scheduled committee is a different constraint. Record repeated requests for the same information and returns to earlier stages. These details make the measure useful. An average duration alone cannot explain whether the business needs better preparation, clearer delegated authority or more frequent access to a specialist.
Examine where authority changes hands
Compare the documented approval policy with the route each case followed. Look for decisions that pass through several managers who cannot change the outcome, as well as decisions that reach an executive because lower-level authority is unclear. Approval limits should reflect financial exposure, contractual risk and the nature of the commitment. A simple transaction may need an exception route when its commercial terms create an unusual obligation.
Meeting schedules can create avoidable waiting, but moving every decision into email creates its own problems. Decide which matters require discussion and which can be assessed against an agreed set of conditions. Give the decision-maker access to the relevant analysis and state how an unresolved objection will be escalated. Record who may approve a substitute when the normal decision-maker is unavailable.
Test a revised route
Apply the proposed route to the same kinds of cases before changing the whole organization. Check whether requests arrive complete, whether the assigned authority is sufficient and whether the record explains the decision afterward. Track reversals and missing controls alongside elapsed time. A shorter process that repeatedly produces incomplete approvals has shifted work into implementation rather than removed it.
Use the findings to update role descriptions, committee terms or submission requirements as necessary. Preserve a way to inspect exceptions. Some decisions take longer because they deserve further analysis, and the measure should help explain those cases rather than pressure employees to close them prematurely. Review the distribution by decision type and complexity, with the underlying cases available for the person responsible for the process.