Analyze approval durations without assigning all waiting to designers or erasing review rounds interrupted by customers.
Index
An asset's timeline includes production, internal checking and external response. Reporting only opening and approval dates does not reveal which stage needs attention or which delay belongs to a dependency.
The unit of analysis determines the result
The unit should combine asset and review round. Mark submission for review and the response received, distinguishing change requests from acceptance. A round with comments from several people needs a rule determining when production has enough instruction to resume.
Creative tools may supply review events. A custom layer supports external channels and campaign identification if links are verifiable. Do not calculate response time from the latest file date; customers may have received another version before that file existed.
Requirements for comparing BI proposals
- Keep presented version and review-request time to identify the start of external waiting.
- Separate no response from insufficient feedback because they block decisions in different ways.
- Show multi-asset campaigns without adding parallel intervals as if they formed one elapsed duration.
A check before using the measure
In a hypothetical scenario, two assets await customer review simultaneously and only one is approved. Check that the campaign retains the second outstanding and aggregate duration does not indiscriminately sum parallel waits. Include a comment on an old version and verify its relationship with the round actually presented.
Reference for assessing scope
Microsoft Learn: facts, dimensions and analytical model grain
Prepare your project with Quantum9
Bring submission events, responses and asset versions to plan analysis with Quantum9.