Focus on one productivity gap: 'Completed requests wait for an owner' is a measurable problem to investigate.; Delays in customer responses often stem from missing approvals or unclear decision boundaries.; A team can act only if it controls or can influence the process causing the delay.
Image: Business Productivity Guide

Prioritisation

Part of Improving team productivity without more activity tracking

Choosing one productivity problem to investigate

Choose one productivity problem using its consequences, available evidence and ability to act, then investigate without assuming the cause.

Desk Workflow · · 3 min read

Choose a productivity problem that is specific, visible in real work and worth acting on. It may recur, or one instance may have serious consequences. Describe the gap between an intended result and what happened. ‘Our hand-offs are slow’ is a starting concern; ‘completed requests wait for an owner before the next team can use them’ is a question you can examine.

Turn complaints into observable questions

Gather recent examples from the work record and from the people doing and receiving the work. Ask which result was delayed or unusable, where it stopped and what was known then. Keep observations separate from explanations: ‘Briefs came back for missing information’ describes what was seen, while ‘the team is careless’ assigns a cause that has not been established.

A useful problem statement names the work, the point of difficulty and the consequence. It need not contain a performance target before the team understands the cause. Avoid bundling every frustration into one investigation. Delayed approval, unclear priorities and repeated corrections may occur together, but each suggests a different question.

Steps to Turn a Complaint into an Observable Question

  • Gather recent examples from work records and team membersInclude both those doing the work and those receiving it.
  • Identify what result was delayed or unusablePinpoint where the work stopped and what was known at that point.
  • Separate observations from explanationsUse neutral language: e.g., 'Briefs came back for missing information' not 'The team is careless'.
  • Frame a clear, observable questionFocus on work, point of difficulty, and consequence—avoid bundling multiple issues.

Select a problem worth the effort

  1. Consequence:Does the gap affect a result people need, its quality, service coverage or the people doing the work?
  2. Evidence:Can you inspect relevant cases and speak with those involved without creating a new surveillance exercise?
  3. Influence:Is there a process, decision or dependency the team can change or take to someone who can?

A problem with serious consequences may need prompt action before a tidy sample exists. Do not postpone a safety concern or a live customer issue for a productivity study.

Conversely, a frequent annoyance with little effect on useful work may not deserve the first investigation.

Evaluating Productivity Problems: Consequence, Evidence, and Influence

  • High ConsequenceAffects critical outcomes, service quality, safety, or team wellbeing. Examples include delayed customer approvals, unresolved hand-offs, or psychosocial hazards like unclear role clarity.
  • Strong Evidence AvailableCases can be reviewed from existing records (e.g., work logs, approval trails) without creating new data collection processes.
  • Team Can Influence ChangeThe issue stems from a process, decision, or dependency within the team’s control or can be escalated to someone with authority.

Write a question, not a diagnosis

Suppose a team sees customer responses waiting between drafting and release. A fair question is: ‘For recent responses that waited, what approval or information was missing, and at what point could it have been supplied?’

Review the relevant cases and ask the drafter, approver and recipient what happened. A long wait might reflect an unavailable approver, an unclear decision boundary, necessary risk checking or a change in the request. The delay alone does not identify which.

Choose a relevant period and record the current state using information already available: which items waited, why they were held according to the record, and whether the recipient could use the eventual response. Note unusual demand or complex cases. This is a baseline for understanding, not a claim that the team has measured its productivity precisely.

End the investigation with one of three findings: the evidence supports a specific process change; an important fact or decision is still missing and has an owner; or the original problem statement needs revision. Only then decide what change to try. This keeps the team from adding a dashboard or rule before it knows what problem the rule is meant to solve.

Investigating a Productivity Problem Without Assuming the Cause

  1. Choose a relevant period and review current stateUse existing information: which items waited, why they were held, whether recipients could use them.
  2. Interview key people involvedSpeak with drafters, approvers, and recipients about what happened in each case.
  3. Analyse patterns without jumping to conclusionsDistinguish between delay causes such as unavailable approvers, unclear boundaries, risk checks, or request changes.

More from Prioritisation