Measuring cycle time for matter intake from request to verified close

Question and scope

The question should name the unit, the start event, the stop event, and the decision the result is meant to inform. The unit definition should be stable enough that two reviewers can classify the same case the same way. The definitions should be short enough to use at the queue and precise enough to defend in a review with supervising attorney. Name the population, the observation window, and the systems included in the extraction. If the evidence is sensitive, record the approved reference and access path rather than copying the content. State the observation window, the sites or teams included, and the exclusions before collecting the first case. Exclude a reopened case only when the reopening did not create a new requirement; keep the exclusion count and reason. If a definition changes during the review, keep the earlier classification and apply the new rule only to later cases. Write the decision the study is meant to inform before choosing the measure. The note should distinguish what was observed, what was inferred, and what still needs an owner decision.

Population and unit

The unit is one matter intake case, from the opening request to the verified close, and linked events stay with that case. A case that moves between owners stays one case unless the process defines a new requirement at the handoff. If the definition of document index completeness changes, keep the old and new values side by side for the transition period. Record the extraction date and the queue filter so another reviewer can reproduce the population count. Record this decision in the study log with the case key, the review date, and the person who approved the classification. Record the opening count by owner and channel, because a single total can hide a queue concentrated in one person. A denominator that changes during the window should be reported separately for each period. The start event should be the first recorded request, not the first time the team opened the case. Separate cases opened before the window from cases opened and closed inside it, and report both counts. Keep the evidence reference beside the coded value so a reviewer can test the same case without rebuilding the queue.

Definitions and measures

Test each definition on a routine case, a missing-evidence case, and a case that crossed owners. Use a stable case key and a separate identity crosswalk stored in an approved system. If a case is outside the scope rule, record the rule and the date of exclusion rather than removing it silently. State how duplicate, cancelled, and reopened cases enter the numerator and denominator. If the source changes after the observation, preserve the earlier value and add a dated note instead of replacing it. Test each definition on a routine case, a missing-evidence case, and a case that crossed owners. A blank field, a not-applicable field, and a confirmed negative field should have different codes. Use the same status vocabulary in the queue, the evidence extract, and the report so a case does not change category. Give one concrete example and one boundary case to each reviewer before collection begins. At Legal Services Offshore, the reviewer should be able to explain this step to paralegal from the case record alone.

Data dictionary and evidence

Each case needs the source, the observation time, the field supported, the owner, and the reviewer. Record the extraction time separately from the event time so a late entry is visible. Record the data extraction date and the version of the deadline calendar used for the population count. Do not use a zero or an empty string to represent missing evidence. Use the same note in the case file and the study extract; do not create a second version in a personal document. The data dictionary should name the allowed values for status, exception reason, owner, and close evidence. Name the required fields for each article type and mark conditional fields in the dictionary. Keep the source reference and the coded value in the same row, and do not overwrite the original with a later correction. Pilot the dictionary with two reviewers and compare their classifications before the main sample. When a case needs an exception, record the reason, the owner, and the date before continuing the review. If the source is a document, record the page or field; if the source is a system, record the record identifier and extraction time. Test the dictionary on a case with a missing outside counsel invoice and a case with a corrected value. Run a five-case pilot before the full sample and revise any field that two reviewers interpret differently. Record the source location, not just the file name, so a reviewer can reopen the exact evidence. Keep the measurement note short enough to read with the case and specific enough to support the reported document index completeness.

Sampling and collection

A convenience sample of recently closed cases will overrepresent easy work and underrepresent the tail that needs attention. Keep the collection window and the number of collectors in the report; both affect how the result should be interpreted. Include reopened, unresolved, and exception cases in the sample frame. Include at least one case from each owner in scope when the frame allows it. If two reviewers disagree, preserve both classifications until the definition or the evidence is resolved. If the population is small, report every case and the reason the sample is exhaustive rather than presenting a false precision. A second reviewer should re-extract a small subsample and record disagreements before the full analysis. Record the eligible count and every exclusion before the sample is drawn. Include at least one case from each owner in scope when the frame allows it. Link the observation to the exact field in the billing portal and to the outside counsel invoice that supports it. Stop expanding the sample only when the review question is answered, not when the result starts to look favorable. Use the same collection form for every case and keep the original record linked to the extracted fields. Use a random or systematic start rule and then take consecutive cases within each stratum. Use a random start and a fixed interval when the frame is ordered, and record both. Do not let a summary written later replace the evidence that was available at the first decision.

Analysis and reporting

A difference between two periods is a signal to inspect, not proof that a process change caused the change. The analysis should end with the decision the evidence can support and the decision it cannot support. When two groups differ, check whether the difference survives after adjusting for case mix and evidence standard. Report the numerator, denominator, observation window, and exclusion count for each measure. If the case moved between owners, include both owner periods in the review note and name the handoff time. Separate observation from interpretation; a high completion rate on a small easy sample is not evidence of a strong control. Keep descriptive findings separate from causal claims. Write the finding in plain language and separate what was observed from what the team believes caused it. End with the decision the evidence supports and the decision it does not support. Keep the review note with the case so the next sampler does not have to reconstruct the decision from memory.

Limitations

Selection bias remains if the team samples only records that are easy to open or cases handled by cooperative owners. The study cannot determine whether a professional judgment was correct, only whether the record supports it. State that the result describes the observed sample and not the entire industry or every team in the service. State what a follow-up study would measure and which population it would include. When a value is missing, record the missing state and the reason instead of leaving an empty field in the extract. The cited public sources frame recordkeeping, privacy, security, or control practice; they do not provide a local result. A clean summary can hide missing evidence, especially when the operator who did the work is also the reviewer. If the reviewer also performed the work, note the independence limitation and use a second reviewer for a subsample. Record the access problems that prevented a case from being reviewed. At Legal Services Offshore, the matter intake review should end with a dated note and a named owner for the next check.

Review and next action

Record the decision and the next check so the study does not end as an archive. Choose one change and one measure to test it; a long action list is hard to evaluate. Set the next sample date before closing the review, so the action does not drift. Link the action to the case evidence that prompted it, not only to the meeting notes. If the evidence is sensitive, record the approved reference and access path rather than copying the content. If the action affects privilege mislabel, route it to vendor and record the approval before implementation. Repeat the protocol with the same definitions and window, then compare the same measures. Choose a measure that can move within one cycle and a second measure that checks for unintended effects. If the action needs approval, record the approver and the date before the change is applied. The note should distinguish what was observed, what was inferred, and what still needs an owner decision.

Related research

• Testing whether deadline calendar monitoring catches silent failures
• Testing evidence completeness in conflict packet without a convenience sample
• Estimating rework in document index from correction and reopen records