Two days to complete eleven minutes of work, most of your process time is queue time, not work time
Time a process properly and the result is usually uncomfortable. Two days from start to finish, of which about eleven minutes is anybody actually doing anything.
Time a process properly, with a clock rather than an estimate, and the result is usually uncomfortable. Two days from the moment something arrives to the moment it is finished, of which about eleven minutes is anybody doing anything at all.
The eleven minutes are visible. They look like work, they appear in job descriptions, and they are what gets discussed whenever somebody says the process is slow. The rest is invisible, because nothing is happening and nobody is being paid to notice.
Touch time and elapsed time are different numbers
Two measurements matter and most businesses only track one. Touch time is how long the work takes when somebody is doing it. Elapsed time is how long it takes from start to finish in the real world.
Customers experience elapsed time. Colleagues waiting downstream experience elapsed time. Touch time is an internal figure that mostly matters for staffing. When the two are wildly different, and they usually are, effort spent on touch time is effort nobody outside the team can feel.
Where the two days actually go
The gaps are boringly consistent across very different businesses.
- Waiting to be noticed. Something arrives in a shared inbox or a folder. It sits there until somebody happens to look, which might be an hour or might be Monday.
- Waiting for an approval. A request goes to somebody who is in meetings all day, and it competes with two hundred other items for a moment of attention.
- Waiting for a rhythm. The next person only processes these on Thursdays, so anything arriving Thursday afternoon waits a week.
- Waiting because nobody owns it. Two people could pick it up, so it sits politely between them and each assumes the other has it.
- Waiting for a rework loop. Something was incomplete, it went back, and the round trip cost two days on its own.
None of these are performance problems. Everybody involved is busy. The item is simply not in anyone's field of view at the moment it becomes their turn.
Why teams optimise the wrong number
Buying a faster tool for a step that already takes eleven minutes is a common and understandable move. It is measurable, it has a vendor, and it produces a number that improves. Eleven minutes becomes eight.
Elapsed time goes from two days to one day, twenty-three hours and fifty-seven minutes. Nobody notices, because the saving landed on the part that was never the constraint.
How to measure your own gaps
The exercise takes a couple of hours and needs no tooling.
- Pick twenty recent items. Real ones from the last month, not a tidy sample chosen by hand.
- Record four timestamps for each. When it arrived. When somebody first touched it. When it moved to the next person. When it was finished.
- Subtract. The intervals between those stamps are your queues. The remainder is the work.
- Rank the queues. One of them is almost always much larger than the others, and it is rarely the one people would have guessed.
Most systems already hold these timestamps somewhere, even if no report surfaces them. Email holds two of them for free.
Closing a gap is usually cheap
This is the encouraging part. Speeding up work is difficult, because the work is the work. Removing a wait is often trivial, because most waits are a message that was never sent to a person who did not know it was their turn.
A notification when something lands, addressed to a named person rather than a shared address. A visible list of items sitting past an agreed age. An acknowledgement to the customer so the delay is at least an informed one. A rule that assigns ownership on arrival instead of leaving it to whoever volunteers.
None of that is difficult to build, and none of it changes how anybody does the actual job. It changes when they find out that it is theirs.
The question worth asking
Next time a process gets described as slow, resist the urge to ask how long the work takes. Ask how long it waits, and between which two steps.
If the honest answer is two days for eleven minutes of effort, the fix is not a faster tool. It is a shorter queue.
The gaps are longer than the steps.
You might also like.
Short pieces on the patterns we see across the work, and the principles behind how we price it.
Frequency, not difficulty, decides what to automate first.
Asked what to automate first, most teams nominate the task they hate most. It is almost always the one that happens least often, and fixing it saves an afternoon a year.
Read the post →Industry observationsThe integration you need is probably already paid for.
A gap appears between two systems and the instinct is to buy something to sit in the middle. More often the capability is already on the invoice, switched off and unopened.
Read the post →Behind the scenesThe first hour of a Sprint is spent watching, not asking.
Every business has a documented process and a real one. The gap between them is not sloppiness. It is where the workarounds live, and the workarounds are the actual requirements.
Read the post →Patterns we seeMost jobs are not lost on price.
When a quote does not turn into a job, the story is usually that someone came in cheaper. Walk the timeline back and the job was often gone before price was ever the point.
Read the post →Industry observationsNobody reads the dashboard.
Dashboards get built, admired for a fortnight, then quietly abandoned. That is a design problem, not a discipline problem. A number with no decision attached is decoration.
Read the post →Patterns we seeEvery business has one person who cannot go on holiday.
Ask what would break if one particular person were away for two weeks, and watch the pause. There is almost always a name, and that name is a risk nobody has priced.
Read the post →How we thinkThe cheapest leads you have are the ones you are already ignoring.
Most businesses have demand they are not collecting before they have demand they need to buy. Search, maps and referrals come first. Paid ads are the last lever, not the first.
Read the post →How we thinkThe ads are not the problem, the machine behind them is.
Turning on ads before the funnel behind them converts is the most common way businesses waste money. The funnel is the machine. Ads are just the moment you switch it on.
Read the post →Patterns we seeThe spreadsheet that became a system when no one was looking.
Almost every team has one workbook everyone is quietly afraid to touch. Here is how it got that way, and what to do about it.
Read the post →Industry observationsMost automation projects fail before anyone writes code.
When an automation project goes wrong, the tool usually gets the blame. The real cause is almost always something that happened earlier.
Read the post →Worked examplesWhat we built when sales spent nine hours a week on lead routing.
A 30-person SaaS sales team was losing nine hours a week to lead routing. Here is what the fix looked like in practice, and what we deliberately did not build.
Read the post →How we thinkThe list of automations is a roadmap, not a shopping basket.
Most automation pitches arrive as a menu of pick-three options. We deliver them as a sequenced plan, ordered by where the hours actually come back.
Read the post →Patterns we seeThree signs the boring bit of your day is fixable.
A short diagnostic for people who suspect the boring layer of their day is fixable but cannot quite name what it is.
Read the post →How we thinkWhy we count the hours before we touch a tool.
The most useful number in an automation project is not a price. It is the hours a task quietly eats every week.
Read the post →Finance and accountingCutting the monthly close from eight days to two.
A 28-person fintech was losing the first eight working days of every month to close. Three small connections later, the close runs in two days and around 120 hours a month come back across the team.
Read the case study →Customer service and supportTriaging 1,200 weekly tickets before an agent opens one.
A 60-person SaaS team was getting 1,200 tickets a week, most of them in five buckets. A triage layer classifies, routes, and attaches the right macro. Real bugs surface to a human inside an hour, not five.
Read the case study →Operations and logisticsStopping orders falling between Shopify and the warehouse.
A 45-person homeware brand was pushing orders to its 3PL via twice-daily CSV exports. A webhook-driven feed replaced the CSVs and the oversells stopped.
Read the case study →Professional servicesClient onboarding in 20 minutes, not two hours of forms.
An 18-person law firm was spending two hours of partner or paralegal time on every new matter. One form, one routing layer, and the partner signs a pre-populated letter while the rest is already done.
Read the case study →E-commerce and DTCSyncing 4,000 SKUs across Shopify and Amazon every hour, not every Tuesday.
A 12-person DTC pet brand ran its inventory sync as a weekly manual job. The hourly automatic sync took the manual loop away. Tuesday came back.
Read the case study →Not sure where to start? Take the 5-minute audit.
11 questions, your automation score, an estimated time-loss number, and three personalised recommendations. No email needed to see your results.
A focused workshop. A written report you keep.
A focused day mapping your operations and scoring the automation opportunities. The ranked plan you can act on, with us or without, follows. From £1,500.
Want to chat?
Two ways in. Send us a message about what's broken, or book a 30-minute call if you already know what you'd like built. Both reach the same person.
