Blog · Board and management reporting
Measure time from an available customer-growth finding to review, decision and first action. Keep pending cases visible and distinguish analytical delivery, commercial delay and customer outcomes.
Customer-growth decision latency is the time an available finding waits for a meaningful business response. Separate availability, review, decision and first action so a team can see where delay occurs. A report delivered quickly can still sit unreviewed, while a promptly reviewed finding may properly wait for customer confirmation.
The insight guide owns the distinction between a change and a useful interpreted finding. This article measures the handling of that finding after it becomes available, using recorded reviews rather than assumptions about report usage.
Choose a repeatable start: the recommendation became available to its intended reviewer with the required supporting evidence. Record data-readiness time separately if it differs. Starting at the first underlying invoice would combine analytical preparation with commercial handling.
Define which recommendations enter the population. Exclude duplicates through a documented rule, and keep revised findings linked to their earlier version. Otherwise repeated notifications can inflate case counts or restart the clock whenever an item becomes old.
Agree whether the measure uses calendar time or working time. Calendar time is simple but includes weekends; working time requires an explicit calendar and time zone. Use one rule throughout a comparison and label it in the result.
| Event | Meaning | Minimum evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Available | Finding and required context reach the reviewer | Recorded availability timestamp |
| Reviewed | Reviewer assesses evidence and required next step | Review note and reviewer |
| Decided | Pursue, investigate, defer or reject is documented | Decision, reason and owner |
| First action | The chosen next step begins | Dated action record |
A decision to investigate is a decision, but its action may be an internal evidence check rather than a customer call. Preserve the action type so quick administrative actions are not mistaken for quick customer engagement.
The weekly sales review provides a place to inspect these records. Log the actual decision date, rather than the date someone later typed the meeting notes.
DEMO-1401 contains three fictional completed recommendations. All elapsed values use calendar hours from availability, with timestamps represented on a single UTC clock.
| Case | Review | Decision | First action | Availability to action |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DEMO-1401-A | Hour 4 | Hour 10 | Hour 16 | 16 hours |
| DEMO-1401-B | Hour 12 | Hour 20 | Hour 28 | 28 hours |
| DEMO-1401-C | Hour 24 | Hour 48 | Hour 72 | 72 hours |
For A, the stages are 4 hours to review, 6 from review to decision and 6 from decision to action. For B they are 12, 8 and 8 hours; for C, 24, 24 and 24. The median completed availability-to-action duration is 28 hours, the middle of 16, 28 and 72.
These cases illustrate subtraction and population handling, not a suitable response-time benchmark. A technical customer question may justifiably take longer than an internal correction.
Suppose DEMO-1401-D has no decision or first action at the observation cutoff, 96 hours after availability. The population contains four recommendations, one pending: 25%. The completed median remains 28 hours among three completed cases; D's 96-hour age appears separately.
Do not enter 96 as D's completed duration. The event has not happened. Do not omit D from the overall population either, since doing so could make a slow process appear faster.
NIST's discussion of censoring explains the general statistical issue of incomplete event observation. This practical review shows pending cases explicitly; it does not present a full time-to-event statistical model.
Long availability-to-review time may reflect unclear ownership or an unsuitable meeting cadence. Long review-to-decision time may reflect missing customer facts. Long decision-to-action time may reflect a specialist queue, unavailable customer window or a deliberately scheduled next step.
Use the disputed-priority-list process when objections delay a decision. Record the evidence question and owner instead of attributing every delay to resistance.
Segment materially different actions before comparison. Comparing an immediate invoice correction with a customer-approved supplier trial would obscure the work involved. Inspect the oldest pending cases alongside medians so a small abandoned group remains visible.
Review whether the action respected eligibility, known service issues and the customer's buying process. A faster but unsuitable proposal can create extra work. Track subsequent decisions and outcomes separately from the initial handling clock.
Read the timeline beside the completed customer-growth review. Bring an authorized recommendation history to Covirage contact to agree the analytical view, event definitions and review scope.
Only if it meets your stated review definition. A useful definition requires a person to assess the finding and record the required next step; merely opening a report may establish access but not review.
Show their pending state and age at a fixed cutoff. Do not treat that age as a completed decision duration or quietly remove pending cases from the population.
No. It measures the speed of the stated process. Assess decision quality, eligibility and subsequent customer outcomes separately. A well-supported decision to defer can be appropriate.