Drafting becomes faster, so the team increases volume. The review queue grows faster than anyone can clear it. The apparent capacity gain disappears into waiting and rushed approvals.
Photo by Yaqing Wei on Unsplash.
Estimate review capacity using measured volumes, review time, correction effort and reviewer availability. Count finding evidence and resolving exceptions. Do this before expanding the workflow.
Measure actual work
Observe representative cases and record time by type. Separate straightforward checks, substantial corrections and escalations. Avoid timing only easy outputs.
Record arrival patterns as well as totals. A queue receiving most work on Monday has a different problem from a steady flow. Note interruptions and dependencies on other decision-makers.
Build a transparent estimate
Use an illustrative calculation, not a benchmark. Suppose 60 cases arrive weekly. Forty straightforward reviews take four minutes each, fifteen corrections take twelve minutes each and five escalations take twenty minutes each.
That is 160 plus 180 plus 100 minutes, or 440 minutes of review. It excludes interruptions, absence and separate follow-up. Replace every assumption with observed data.
Compare requirements with protected reviewer time. Empty calendar space does not automatically represent available checking capacity.
Record the assumptions:
Expected arrivals and peak periods.
Mix of straightforward and difficult cases.
Measured handling time by type.
Primary and backup availability.
Maximum acceptable waiting time.
Work excluded from the estimate.
Check quality under pressure
Try a representative workload without letting unreviewed outputs affect clients. Watch whether people skip source checks or waiting cases exceed agreed limits.
A faster average review is not automatically an improvement. Determine whether it reflects clearer outputs or less meaningful inspection. Include correction quality in the assessment.
Respond to the constraint
Options include narrowing eligible cases, improving intake, simplifying the review screen, changing arrival timing or assigning capacity. Keep consequential cases within approval rules.
Do not remove a review step because its queue is inconvenient. Establish its purpose and the evidence needed for a different process.
Related guidance: guide to mapping the work before changing it.
