Fictional Case Study: Reducing Rework in an Approval Process

Fictional learning scenario

This is an original RDE teaching case. The organisation, records, observations and outcomes are invented for learning. It is not a client case, testimonial or report of real results.

Context and decision to make

A fictional team submits small purchase requests for approval. Staff complain about repeated returns and suggest asking approvers to work faster. A process facilitator investigates the work before changing response targets.

Evidence available in the scenario

The first fictional sample contains 20 completed requests. Eight are returned at least once. Five requests lack the required cost breakdown, two name no accountable owner and one uses an outdated form. Each returned request is assigned one primary first-return reason for this exercise, so the categories sum to eight. Some could have several problems. Return events are not the same as returned requests.

Approach and interpretation

The facilitator checks the request template, the instructions and three handovers with the people involved. The cost breakdown is described only in an old email; the shared template has no prompt for it. The team therefore records missing input guidance as a plausible contributor, not a proven root cause. They also note that waiting time after a complete submission may have a different explanation.

Options and decision

The team considers a faster approval target, a replacement purchasing system and a revised input check. They choose to add a cost-breakdown prompt, identify the owner field and publish one current template. A colleague checks completeness before submission. The approver still assesses the request itself; completeness checking does not grant approval or override spending authority.

Outcome within the fictional scenario

In a second fictional sample of 20 completed requests, three are returned at least once: two for cost details and one for an unclear owner. The share of returned requests falls from 40% to 15%, a difference of 25 percentage points. This is also a 62.5% relative reduction in that sample, not a 25% relative reduction. Median completeness-check time is four minutes, a new workload the team must include in its review.

Limitations and next checks

The results support continuing a limited trial, not a guaranteed improvement claim. The two samples may differ in complexity, submitters or approvers. The extra check could become a bottleneck as volume grows. The team keeps both return reasons and checking effort under review and does not infer a reduction in total turnaround time without measuring it.

Apply the case

Allow about 20 minutes. Identify the decision, extract the evidence and write down one assumption that needs checking. Separate the observed or stipulated figures from the explanation proposed by the team.

1. What is the difference between a returned request and a return event?
2. Why must the four-minute check be included in the decision?
3. What additional measure would test whether end-to-end turnaround improved?

Check your learning

Define the unit, inspect missing inputs and include the cost of the new control. Fewer returns alone do not establish a faster or cheaper process.

A useful response names the unit being measured, tests the proposed explanation against the available evidence and proposes a next check that could change the decision. Avoid claiming a general result from the small fictional sample.

Use and attribution

Original educational scenario by Jefferson Otonbara Imgbi. Version 1.0, 8 October 2026. No real customer records, organisation identities or endorsements are used. Personal and internal organisational learning use permitted with author credit retained.

Cover image: AI-generated illustrative scene created specifically for this resource.