Decision Velocity examines reported delays in making decisions. It asks about approvals, reviews, handoffs, escalation, and the coordination needed to reach a decision.
The diagnostic records the participant’s account of this work, including time estimates where asked. It does not assume that a faster decision is always better or that each review step is unnecessary.
A useful decision process balances timely action with the information, review, and authority the decision requires.
What the diagnostic asks about
The questions cover how decisions are referred, reviewed, and completed from the participant’s selected perspective. They can reveal uncertainty or repeated follow-up in that account, but they do not independently verify elapsed time or identify a cause.
Topics covered
Four aspects of decision-making
The question path adapts to the submitted answers and selected perspective: people doing the work, managers, or senior leaders.
Four distinct diagnostic lenses
Monderman’s four diagnostics cover different aspects of work. Each result reflects the submitted answers and selected role, not a complete assessment of the organization.
| Diagnostic | Business focus | What it examines |
|---|---|---|
| Structural Clarity | Clear responsibilities and decision authority | Whether people know who is responsible for work, who can make decisions, and how responsibilities pass between roles. |
| Decision Velocity | Delays in making decisions | Reported delays associated with approvals, escalation, review steps, and routing. |
| Operational Systems | Unnecessary process work | Recurring processes, reporting, coordination, and repeated data entry that may create unnecessary work. |
| Institutional Performance | Consistent delivery and adaptation | Participants' reports of reliable delivery, responses to changing demands, and the effort needed to maintain results. |
Decision Velocity focuses on reported decision delays. Structural Clarity examines responsibilities and authority; Operational Systems examines unnecessary process work; Institutional Performance examines consistent delivery and adaptation.
Why decision delays deserve attention
A decision may wait for information, review, or an authorized person. These possibilities should be checked against a concrete example instead of treating every delay as a process defect.
Timing matters differently for different decisions. The next step may be to clarify what was needed, where the decision waited, and which requirements still apply.
What one completed run can show
The Decision Velocity report presents a score and band from the structured answers, the participant’s selected perspective, recorded strengths and concerns, and evidence-linked next steps where supported. A single run does not establish organization-wide conditions or change over time.
Illustrative report layout
A participant’s view of decision-making
62
Recorded findings. A reading of the participant’s answers about decision-making in the stated work context.
Reported strengths and concerns. Conditions the participant describes as helpful or difficult, without assuming which one causes delay.
Practical next steps. A focused question or review that respects the decision’s existing approval requirements.
Illustrative layout only: the score and band above are not an assessed result. Completed reports explain recorded answers, preserve participant attribution, and include evidence-linked next steps where supported.
Decision-making issues to investigate
Repeated follow-up
If a participant reports repeated follow-up, a review can ask what information or approval was needed. It should not presume that another person’s involvement was unnecessary.
Informal coordination
Informal arrangements may help people complete a decision. The account should be checked before concluding that the formal process is ineffective.
The purpose of review
A review step may address a real risk. Proposed changes need the responsible owner’s approval and should preserve required controls.
Unresolved decisions
A participant may describe decisions arriving late or being reopened. Follow-up should establish what happened in the relevant case and whether circumstances changed.
How Monderman approaches decision velocity
Monderman organizes submitted answers around practical questions: What decision was needed? Where did it wait? Which information and approvals were required? What could a responsible person check next?
Use the report to choose a bounded inquiry, not to remove approvals automatically. A proposed improvement needs testing; the report does not promise a shorter decision time.
When this diagnostic may be useful
Consider a run when decisions involve repeated follow-up, unclear referral requirements, or difficulty obtaining needed information. The result can also record what the participant says works well.
Run the Decision Velocity diagnostic