The Workflow Bottleneck Nobody Owns
A 20-lawyer firm's client-intake-to-engagement-letter process takes an average of 11 days. The steps: (1) intake call by a paralegal (1 day), (2) conflicts check by the managing partner (averages 4 days because it waits for his attention), (3) engagement letter drafted by an associate (2 days), (4) reviewed and signed by the responsible attorney (averages 3 days), (5) returned by the client (1 day). Clients have complained, and two prospects went elsewhere during the wait. No one owns the process end to end; each step 'belongs' to a different person. The managing partner is the bottleneck at step 2 but is also the only person authorized to clear conflicts.
1. Map the process and identify where the delay actually comes from. What is the key structural problem?
Read the worked answer
Map (average days): intake 1 → conflicts 4 → drafting 2 → attorney review/sign 3 → client return 1 = 11 days.
Where the delay is: the two waiting steps - conflicts (4 days) and attorney review (3 days) - account for 7 of 11 days, i.e., ~64%. These aren't work time; they're queue time waiting for a senior person's attention. Intake, drafting, and client return total 4 days and are largely working time.
Structural problem: the process has no owner, and authority is concentrated in one person (the managing partner) who is also the scarcest resource. Every matter queues behind his calendar. This is a classic bottleneck: throughput is set by the slowest, least-available step, and adding capacity anywhere else won't help.
Second problem: because no one owns the end-to-end process, no one is measuring it or empowered to change it. The 11 days is nobody's number.
2. Propose changes that reduce cycle time without adding headcount.
Read the worked answer
Attack the queue steps, not the work steps:
- Decentralize routine conflicts clearance: train a second person (e.g., a senior paralegal or office manager) to run standard conflicts checks against the database, with the managing partner clearing only flagged/edge cases. This converts a 4-day queue into a same-day routine with escalation.
- Set a service-level target (e.g., conflicts cleared within 1 business day; engagement letters signed within 1 business day) and make it visible.
- Batch/trigger: route conflicts requests to a shared queue with a daily check, not an inbox that waits for attention.
- Pre-approved engagement letter templates by matter type so drafting is faster and review is an approval, not a rewrite.
- Assign a process owner with authority to change steps and report cycle time monthly.
Expected effect: conflicts 4→1, review 3→1 saves ~5 days, taking the average from 11 to ~6 without new hires.
3. How would you measure whether the changes worked, and what would you watch for as unintended consequences?
Read the worked answer
Measures:
- Cycle time: median and 90th-percentile days from intake to signed letter (median hides the tail that loses clients).
- Per-step wait time to confirm the queue shrank, not just the total.
- Conversion: prospects lost during intake (track the two who left as a baseline).
- Error rate: conflicts misses or engagement-letter defects - speed must not trade off against the control.
Unintended consequences to watch:
- Conflicts quality: if the delegated checker misses something, the firm has traded a delay for a malpractice risk. Build in a spot-audit.
- Managing partner disengagement: if he stops reviewing entirely, edge cases may slip; keep escalation for flagged matters.
- Gaming: staff may log 'received' dates later to flatter the metric - audit timestamps.
- New bottleneck: once conflicts clears in a day, drafting or review may become the constraint; re-map after 60 days.
The judgment point: measure the tail and the control, not just the average - the average was never the real problem.