What it means
Define a complete submission: it should identify the requested scope, reason, estimated cost, schedule, dependencies, risks and decision needed. A two-line email saying "please add this" may begin a conversation but not a fair approval clock if the approver lacks basic facts.
Record when required information was received and whether later revisions reset or pause the clock under the agreed workflow, and avoid changing timestamps after the event merely to improve the metric. Identify decision rights, since an internal manager may approve a small budget change while a customer signatory or board may need to approve material contractual scope.
Parallel reviews by finance, technical, safety or legal teams can be necessary. The project manager should know the route before work starts, because a customer's operational employee may like the proposed change but lack authority to bind its company, so separate technical feasibility from commercial assent.
Assess impact while waiting by asking which tasks can continue under the original scope and which would create rework if the decision changes. A team may hold scarce equipment, but the cost of doing so should be visible.
If the change affects a hard deadline, notify the project owner early and consider approved alternatives, and do not begin unapproved work simply to avoid appearing late, because that can leave the business unable to bill or the customer facing an unwanted cost. Keep the queue owned by showing each pending request's age, current reviewer, missing evidence, deadline and next action, and remind the decision-maker before the delay harms the project.
If one reviewer is absent, use an authorised deputy rather than informal approval. Tell the customer when a response is expected, and distinguish a preliminary estimate from a final accepted change, since an approval communicated internally must still reach the teams that update plans and purchase orders.
Review patterns, because high lag may come from incomplete requests, too many serial approvers, unclear limits or genuinely complex risk. Track the share completed within target and the effects on schedule and cost.
A very fast approval is not automatically good if changes repeatedly cause defects, so improve forms and authority thresholds based on evidence while preserving important checks for large commitments. For owners, approval lag reveals a hidden capacity cost in projects.
It shows where decisions, not labour or materials, slow delivery and helps the business set realistic promises for changes.
In practice
Real-world examples.
Example
A design change waits six days for a customer signatory while the site team can safely continue only the original approved scope.
Example
A proposed substitute material is reviewed by engineering and the customer before purchasing changes its order.
Example
A project manager spots that a complete request has sat in an absent approver's queue and routes it to an authorised deputy.
Formula
Calculation
Change approval lag = Authorised decision timestamp - Timestamp of complete change submission
Worked example. An invented complete request reaches the proper reviewer Monday at 09:00. Approval arrives Thursday at 15:00.
- Lag is three days and six hours, or 78 hours under a continuous-hours measure.
- Record any agreed pause for missing evidence separately, with a reason.
Do not use an incomplete first inquiry as the start unless that is the declared metric.Case study
Seen in the real world.
This illustrative and entirely fictional example follows Willow Projects, an invented office fit-out contractor. Its client asked to alter lighting after installation plans were approved. Willow's designer estimated the change quickly, but the request sat between the client's facilities and finance teams. The site crew held an electrician slot for days and then missed another milestone. Willow made a complete change pack with drawings, cost, schedule effect and a named customer decision-maker.
It logged the submission and chased a decision before the held crew became idle. The client approved a smaller alternative, and Willow updated purchasing and the programme before work began. The project manager measured time spent waiting for a decision separately from design work. The owner learned that faster execution alone would not have solved the delay. A clear approval path and visible queue helped both sides choose without unapproved work.
Watch out
Common mistakes.
- Starting the clock from an incomplete idea but blaming the approver for missing evidence.
- Letting a change wait without an owner, deadline or assessment of its effect on the project.
- Beginning changed work before commercial or technical authority is secured.
Questions
People also ask.
Is a fast approval always a good outcome?
No. It still needs enough evidence and the right authority to protect cost, quality and safety.
What if the customer is delaying the decision?
Record the complete submission, impact and next action, and communicate the schedule risk under the agreed process.
When does the lag end?
At a valid approve-or-reject decision by the authorised party, not merely an internal recommendation.
From the founder's library
Take it further with the book.
Build your financial confidence beyond this definition. Shihan's full-length guide, Accounting Fundamentals, takes the same plain-English approach and turns it into a complete, practical playbook for non-finance managers, business owners and students - with chapter-end quiz answers and presentation slides included.
25% off with code MMHQ25, applied at checkout. Priced in USD - checkout may show the equivalent in your local currency.
View the book and save 25%