01 · Executive summary
Capacity consumed, and what may be recoverable
Respondents reported 3,028 hours of annual work friction, equivalent to 1.8 FTE of capacity. Of the assessed activity, 1,300 hours are potentially recoverable.
Observed work friction — reported by respondents
Annual hours
3,028hrs
Primary 2,946 · secondary 82
Working days
378days
FTE equivalent
1.8FTE
Potentially recoverable — capacity, not guaranteed savings
Potentially recoverable hours
1,300hrs
Primary friction points only
Potentially recoverable days / FTE
163days · 0.8 FTE
Recoverability coverage
88%
Share of primary hours where recoverability could be assessed
Largest friction themes
Evidence of wider exposure
58% of respondents (29) said six or more other people do similar work. This signals the pattern may extend beyond respondents; it is not added to the hours above.
02 · Where friction is happening
Observed work friction by department
Other departments
14 respondents · 28%
536FTE 0.3Potentially recoverable 174 hrsCoverage 90%Frustration 2.9Operations
12 respondents · 24%
1,042FTE 0.6Potentially recoverable 541 hrsCoverage 88%Frustration 3.7Customer Service
7 respondents · 14%
620FTE 0.4Potentially recoverable 228 hrsCoverage 79%Frustration 3.6Finance
6 respondents · 12%
301FTE 0.2Potentially recoverable 127 hrsCoverage 82%Frustration 3.2Technology / IT
6 respondents · 12%
307FTE 0.2Potentially recoverable 118 hrsCoverage 100%Frustration 2.7Sales
5 respondents · 10%
222FTE 0.1Potentially recoverable 111 hrsCoverage 100%Frustration 3.0
“Other departments” combines 5 departments with fewer than 5 respondents each, to protect anonymity.
03 · Largest friction themes
What respondents are describing
01Manual reporting and reconciliation
Reports and management views are assembled by exporting, combining, checking, and formatting information from several sources. Differences often require manual investigation before reporting can be completed.
Strongly recurringHigh confidence733 hrs25% of primary hours11 respondents (22%) · 0.4 FTE
376
Potentially recoverable
Manual reporting and reconciliation
Reports and management views are assembled by exporting, combining, checking, and formatting information from several sources. Differences often require manual investigation before reporting can be completed.
11 respondents (22%) · 0.4 FTE
376
Potentially recoverable
- Observed hours
- 733
- Working days
- 92
- Potentially recoverable
- 376 hrs
- Coverage
- 95%
- Average frustration
- 3.4
Evidence indicates…
Synthesised from what respondents reported
- Employees compile operational, marketing, finance, service, compliance, and internal summary reports from multiple sources.
- Reported work includes comparing totals, tracing differences, formatting outputs, and adding commentary manually.
Likely underlying causes…
Interpretation — to be validated
- Reporting sources are not connected or do not provide a shared authoritative view.
- Management reporting processes rely on manually maintained workbooks and periodic data exports.
Possible intervention types
Friction
- Manual checking / reconciliation100%733 hrs
- Creating reports manually73%558 hrs
- Moving/copying information between systems36%324 hrs
- Finding information27%135 hrs
- Repeating the same steps9%40 hrs
- System limitations9%180 hrs
- Waiting for information from someone else9%36 hrs
Business impact
- Minor inconvenience or delay91%553 hrs
- Significant operational impact27%324 hrs
- Financial impact18%135 hrs
- Compliance / legal / risk impact9%36 hrs
- Other work couldn't progress9%180 hrs
Barriers
- Technology / system limitations64%603 hrs
- It's never been prioritised45%382 hrs
- It involves several teams27%99 hrs
- Lack of time18%144 hrs
- Company policy / process9%36 hrs
- I don't know9%36 hrs
- People are used to doing it this way9%18 hrs
Categories overlap — one response can select several — so these hours must not be added together.
02Cross-team handoffs and ownership
Work crossing team boundaries lacks visible ownership, progress information, or reliable completion signals. Employees follow up with other teams and keep cases open while waiting for the next action.
Strongly recurringHigh confidence570 hrs19% of primary hours8 respondents (16%) · 0.3 FTE
100
Potentially recoverable
Cross-team handoffs and ownership
Work crossing team boundaries lacks visible ownership, progress information, or reliable completion signals. Employees follow up with other teams and keep cases open while waiting for the next action.
8 respondents (16%) · 0.3 FTE
100
Potentially recoverable
- Observed hours
- 570
- Working days
- 71
- Potentially recoverable
- 100 hrs
- Coverage
- 48%
- Average frustration
- 3.6
Evidence indicates…
Synthesised from what respondents reported
- Support issues, customer cases, operational work, invoice queries, and internal questions are passed between teams.
- Employees report unclear ownership, limited visibility of progress, repeated follow-ups, and uncertainty about who should act next.
Likely underlying causes…
Interpretation — to be validated
- Cross-team workflows do not define accountable ownership and escalation routes clearly enough.
- Systems do not expose handoff status, next actions, or completion notifications to all relevant participants.
Possible intervention types
Friction
- Chasing people88%516 hrs
- Waiting for information from someone else88%516 hrs
- Unclear ownership50%252 hrs
- Unclear process25%108 hrs
Business impact
- Other work couldn't progress88%546 hrs
- Customer impact50%288 hrs
- Minor inconvenience or delay25%78 hrs
- Financial impact13%54 hrs
- Significant operational impact13%54 hrs
Barriers
- It involves several teams100%570 hrs
- Nobody owns the problem63%372 hrs
- Technology / system limitations13%120 hrs
Categories overlap — one response can select several — so these hours must not be added together.
03Duplicate data entry across systems
The same operational information is entered or copied into multiple records. This creates repeated steps and opportunities for mismatches between sources.
Strongly recurringHigh confidence504 hrs17% of primary hours10 respondents (20%) · 0.3 FTE
337
Potentially recoverable
Duplicate data entry across systems
The same operational information is entered or copied into multiple records. This creates repeated steps and opportunities for mismatches between sources.
10 respondents (20%) · 0.3 FTE
337
Potentially recoverable
- Observed hours
- 504
- Working days
- 63
- Potentially recoverable
- 337 hrs
- Coverage
- 100%
- Average frustration
- 2.9
Evidence indicates…
Synthesised from what respondents reported
- Opportunity, case, release, supplier, employee, job, and incident details are copied between systems or records.
- Employees report re-entering information that already exists elsewhere and checking the duplicated records afterwards.
Likely underlying causes…
Interpretation — to be validated
- Systems are not integrated or do not share structured data.
- Separate records and policy requirements have developed around the same information.
Possible intervention types
Friction
- Entering the same information more than once80%444 hrs
- Moving/copying information between systems60%283 hrs
- Manual checking / reconciliation30%131 hrs
- Repeating the same steps30%141 hrs
Business impact
- Minor inconvenience or delay90%480 hrs
- Other work couldn't progress20%117 hrs
- Customer impact10%120 hrs
- Very little10%24 hrs
Barriers
- Technology / system limitations70%363 hrs
- Company policy / process20%117 hrs
- It involves several teams20%54 hrs
- People are used to doing it this way20%114 hrs
- Difficult to change10%40 hrs
- Nobody has really raised it10%90 hrs
Categories overlap — one response can select several — so these hours must not be added together.
04Fragmented information and guidance
Current information is spread across systems, documents, notes, messages, or records, making it difficult to establish the latest position. Employees search, compare, and interpret sources before proceeding or responding.
Strongly recurringHigh confidence488 hrs17% of primary hours9 respondents (18%) · 0.3 FTE
176
Potentially recoverable
Fragmented information and guidance
Current information is spread across systems, documents, notes, messages, or records, making it difficult to establish the latest position. Employees search, compare, and interpret sources before proceeding or responding.
9 respondents (18%) · 0.3 FTE
176
Potentially recoverable
- Observed hours
- 488
- Working days
- 61
- Potentially recoverable
- 176 hrs
- Coverage
- 96%
- Average frustration
- 2.8
Evidence indicates…
Synthesised from what respondents reported
- Employees search several systems, folders, dashboards, notes, messages, or policy sources for current information.
- Handover, supplier, exception, employee, operational, and customer guidance records are not consistently aligned or clearly versioned.
Likely underlying causes…
Interpretation — to be validated
- There is no consistently maintained source of truth for key information.
- Information architecture, version control, and search capabilities are insufficient for less common or changing cases.
Possible intervention types
Friction
- Finding information100%488 hrs
- Manual checking / reconciliation33%144 hrs
- System limitations33%250 hrs
- Moving/copying information between systems11%36 hrs
- Unclear process11%40 hrs
- Waiting for information from someone else11%120 hrs
Business impact
- Minor inconvenience or delay100%488 hrs
- Customer impact22%160 hrs
- Other work couldn't progress22%180 hrs
- Compliance / legal / risk impact11%18 hrs
- Significant operational impact11%40 hrs
Barriers
- People are used to doing it this way56%202 hrs
- It involves several teams44%210 hrs
- Technology / system limitations44%340 hrs
- Difficult to change11%90 hrs
- Nobody has really raised it11%40 hrs
Categories overlap — one response can select several — so these hours must not be added together.
05Parallel exception tracking
Exceptions and follow-up actions are maintained outside the main operational or finance systems because those systems do not capture the required context or workflow. This creates additional records to maintain and search.
Strongly recurringHigh confidence246 hrs8% of primary hours3 respondents (6%) · 0.1 FTE
160
Potentially recoverable
Parallel exception tracking
Exceptions and follow-up actions are maintained outside the main operational or finance systems because those systems do not capture the required context or workflow. This creates additional records to maintain and search.
3 respondents (6%) · 0.1 FTE
160
Potentially recoverable
- Observed hours
- 246
- Working days
- 31
- Potentially recoverable
- 160 hrs
- Coverage
- 100%
- Average frustration
- 3.7
Evidence indicates…
Synthesised from what respondents reported
- Employees maintain separate spreadsheets or notes for order exceptions, unusual jobs, and finance follow-up actions.
- Main systems hold core transactions but do not provide the team view, context, ownership, or next-action information needed for exceptions.
Likely underlying causes…
Interpretation — to be validated
- Core systems are designed for standard transactions rather than exception workflows.
- Exception ownership, status, and history are not represented in a shared structured process.
Possible intervention types
Friction
- Repeating the same steps100%246 hrs
- System limitations100%246 hrs
- Moving/copying information between systems33%90 hrs
Business impact
- Minor inconvenience or delay100%246 hrs
- Financial impact33%36 hrs
- Other work couldn't progress33%90 hrs
- Significant operational impact33%120 hrs
Barriers
- Technology / system limitations100%246 hrs
- People are used to doing it this way67%126 hrs
- Difficult to change33%120 hrs
Categories overlap — one response can select several — so these hours must not be added together.
06Approval delays and opaque routing
Requests move through multiple approval stages without clear visibility of the outstanding approver or current status. Follow-up is needed before routine or time-sensitive work can progress.
Strongly recurringHigh confidence189 hrs6% of primary hours4 respondents (8%) · 0.1 FTE
76
Potentially recoverable
Approval delays and opaque routing
Requests move through multiple approval stages without clear visibility of the outstanding approver or current status. Follow-up is needed before routine or time-sensitive work can progress.
4 respondents (8%) · 0.1 FTE
76
Potentially recoverable
- Observed hours
- 189
- Working days
- 24
- Potentially recoverable
- 76 hrs
- Coverage
- 100%
- Average frustration
- 3.3
Evidence indicates…
Synthesised from what respondents reported
- Purchase, campaign, access, and pricing requests wait across approval steps.
- Employees report chasing approvals and difficulty confirming which version, approver, or stage is current.
Likely underlying causes…
Interpretation — to be validated
- Approval routes are more complex than the risk or routine nature of some requests requires.
- Requesters lack transparent status information and clear routing rules.
Possible intervention types
Friction
- Waiting for approval100%189 hrs
- Chasing people75%135 hrs
- Too many approval steps50%81 hrs
- Unclear process50%108 hrs
- Finding information25%54 hrs
Business impact
- Other work couldn't progress75%135 hrs
- Minor inconvenience or delay50%108 hrs
- Customer impact25%54 hrs
- Financial impact25%54 hrs
Barriers
- Company policy / process75%135 hrs
- It involves several teams75%162 hrs
- Difficult to change25%27 hrs
Categories overlap — one response can select several — so these hours must not be added together.
07Status-heavy meetings
Recurring meetings spend substantial attention repeating status information already recorded in shared tools. Decision-making and support discussions occur only after the repeated updates.
Strongly recurringHigh confidence108 hrs4% of primary hours3 respondents (6%) · 0.1 FTE
43
Potentially recoverable
Status-heavy meetings
Recurring meetings spend substantial attention repeating status information already recorded in shared tools. Decision-making and support discussions occur only after the repeated updates.
3 respondents (6%) · 0.1 FTE
43
Potentially recoverable
- Observed hours
- 108
- Working days
- 14
- Potentially recoverable
- 43 hrs
- Coverage
- 100%
- Average frustration
- 3.0
Evidence indicates…
Synthesised from what respondents reported
- Pipeline, campaign, and planning meetings include verbal status updates already available in CRM or planning tools.
- Employees report that meetings could focus more directly on decisions, risks, constraints, and support needed.
Likely underlying causes…
Interpretation — to be validated
- Meeting norms have not shifted to use shared records as the default status source.
- Agendas and pre-reading do not consistently distinguish information sharing from decision-making.
Possible intervention types
Friction
- Meetings100%108 hrs
- Repeating the same steps100%108 hrs
Business impact
- Minor inconvenience or delay100%108 hrs
- Significant operational impact33%36 hrs
Barriers
- People are used to doing it this way100%108 hrs
- Nobody has really raised it33%36 hrs
Categories overlap — one response can select several — so these hours must not be added together.
08Incomplete request intake
Requests arrive without the information needed to begin review or scheduling. Employees identify gaps and repeatedly contact requesters before work can proceed.
RecurringMedium confidence108 hrs4% of primary hours2 respondents (4%) · 0.1 FTE
32
Potentially recoverable
Incomplete request intake
Requests arrive without the information needed to begin review or scheduling. Employees identify gaps and repeatedly contact requesters before work can proceed.
2 respondents (4%) · 0.1 FTE
32
Potentially recoverable
- Observed hours
- 108
- Working days
- 14
- Potentially recoverable
- 32 hrs
- Coverage
- 100%
- Average frustration
- 3.0
Evidence indicates…
Synthesised from what respondents reported
- Review and scheduling requests are submitted without required background, evidence, or operational details.
- Employees identify missing information and follow up before assessment or scheduling can start.
Likely underlying causes…
Interpretation — to be validated
- Request forms and submission guidance do not consistently enforce required information.
- Different teams have differing expectations about what constitutes a complete request.
Possible intervention types
Friction
- Unclear process100%108 hrs
- Waiting for information from someone else100%108 hrs
- Chasing people50%54 hrs
Business impact
- Compliance / legal / risk impact50%54 hrs
- Minor inconvenience or delay50%54 hrs
- Other work couldn't progress50%54 hrs
- Significant operational impact50%54 hrs
Barriers
- It involves several teams100%108 hrs
- Company policy / process50%54 hrs
Categories overlap — one response can select several — so these hours must not be added together.
04 · Friction & business impact
What makes the work harder, and what it affects
Categories overlap — one response can select several — so these hours must not be added together.
Friction categories
- Manual checking / reconciliation1,008 hrs34%
- Finding information677 hrs26%
- Moving/copying information between systems733 hrs24%
- Chasing people705 hrs22%
- Waiting for information from someone else780 hrs22%
- Repeating the same steps535 hrs20%
- Creating reports manually558 hrs16%
- Entering the same information more than once444 hrs16%
- System limitations676 hrs14%
- Unclear process364 hrs14%
- Unclear ownership252 hrs8%
- Waiting for approval189 hrs8%
- Meetings108 hrs6%
- Too many approval steps81 hrs4%
Business impact
- Minor inconvenience or delay2,115 hrs78%
- Other work couldn't progress1,302 hrs34%
- Customer impact622 hrs16%
- Significant operational impact628 hrs16%
- Financial impact279 hrs10%
- Compliance / legal / risk impact108 hrs6%
- Very little24 hrs2%
Barriers to change
- It involves several teams1,203 hrs44%
- Technology / system limitations1,672 hrs44%
- People are used to doing it this way568 hrs26%
- Company policy / process342 hrs14%
- It's never been prioritised382 hrs10%
- Nobody owns the problem372 hrs10%
- Difficult to change277 hrs8%
- Nobody has really raised it166 hrs6%
- Lack of time144 hrs4%
- I don't know36 hrs2%
Highest business-impact severity per response
0 = very little · 5 = compliance / legal / risk. Not assessable: 0.
Frustration
Average 3.2 on a 1–5 scale. Frustration is employee experience, separate from business impact.
05 · What could change
Where management could act
AI-derived from themes
Intervention opportunities
Intervention types suggested across themes, with the observed primary hours of those themes.
- Standardise2,946 hrs8 themes
- Integrate2,541 hrs5 themes
- Improve information flow2,442 hrs7 themes
- Simplify2,350 hrs6 themes
- Automate1,237 hrs2 themes
- Self-service785 hrs3 themes
- Redesign meetings/reporting108 hrs1 theme
A theme can suggest several intervention types, so these hours overlap and must not be added together.
Employee-stated · not a recommendation
Where employees would rather spend their time
Share of respondents choosing each option if this time were freed up.
- Improving existing processes50%25 respondents
- Higher-value technical or specialist work46%23 respondents
- Supporting colleagues30%15 respondents
- Customer / client work28%14 respondents
- Reducing workload / overtime16%8 respondents
- Innovation / new ideas12%6 respondents
- Revenue-generating activity10%5 respondents
- Training / development4%2 respondents
06 · Methodology & confidence
How to read this report
- Observed hours are those reported by respondents themselves. They are not extrapolated to people who did not respond.
- Potentially recoverable hours describe capacity that could be redirected. They are not a guaranteed cash saving or headcount reduction.
- Where respondents were unsure how much judgement the work needs, recoverability is not assessed. Coverage shows how much activity could be assessed.
- Friction, impact, barrier and intervention categories overlap — one response can select several — so their hours must not be added together.
- Secondary friction points count towards observed hours but are not assigned to themes and never contribute to recoverability.
- Themes are ordered by observed hours, then respondent count. The order is not a business-priority score.
- Confidence reflects how clearly responses fit a theme (AI classification). Recurrence reflects only how many respondents describe it.
- Groups below the anonymity threshold are combined or withheld so that no individual can be identified.
- No loaded employee cost was configured, so no financial values are shown.
- Anonymity threshold: groups smaller than 5 respondents are never shown on their own.
About this analysis
Data quality
- Responses
- 50
- Recoverability assessable
- 45
- Recoverability not assessable
- 5
- Coverage by responses
- 90%
- Coverage by primary hours
- 88%
- Organisational scale known
- 49
- Organisational scale unknown
- 1
- With a secondary friction point
- 3
- Individual hours above one FTE
- 0
- Loaded cost configured
- No
- Theme department lists withheld
- 4
Assumptions
1,650 hours per FTE per year · 8 hours per working day.
| Daily | 240 occurrences |
| Weekly | 48 occurrences |
| Monthly | 12 occurrences |
| Less frequently | 6 occurrences |
| Several times per day | 720 occurrences |
| Several times per week | 144 occurrences |
| Several times per month | 36 occurrences |
| 1–2 hours | 1.5 hours |
| 2–4 hours | 3 hours |
| 5–15 minutes | 0.17 hours |
| 15–30 minutes | 0.38 hours |
| 30–60 minutes | 0.75 hours |
| Under 5 minutes | 0.05 hours |
| More than 4 hours | 5 hours |
| 50+ | 51 people |
| 2–5 | 4.5 people |
| 6–10 | 9 people |
| 11–25 | 19 people |
| 26–50 | 39 people |
| I don't know | Not assessable |
| I'm not sure | Not assessable |
| Moderate — judgement is regularly required | 40% |
| Almost none — I generally follow the same steps | 80% |
| A little — there are occasional decisions or exceptions | 65% |
| A lot — the work depends heavily on experience or context | 20% |
| Very little | 0 |
| I'm not sure | Not assessable |
| Customer impact | 4 |
| Financial impact | 4 |
| Minor inconvenience or delay | 1 |
| Other work couldn't progress | 3 |
| Significant operational impact | 4 |
| Compliance / legal / risk impact | 5 |
| Not frustrating | 1 |
| Very frustrating | 4 |
| Slightly frustrating | 2 |
| Extremely frustrating | 5 |
| Moderately frustrating | 3 |
Technical identifiers
- Report version
- exec-report-v1.0.0
- Methodology version
- Nortamy Methodology V1