Execution drag review
Locate handoffs and decision delays using observed delivery flow rather than a synthetic velocity score.
The decision
Where does work wait after engineering begins?
Assumptions and limits
No team efficiency percentage is calculated from subjective answers.
Describe your situation
Decision context
What most often stalls a committed item?
- Unclear decisions
- Team handoffs
- Rework or defects
- We have not measured it
Decision context
Can you distinguish active work from waiting time?
- Yes
- No
- Not sure
Flow evidence
Does the diagnosis use a representative set of completed and stalled items?
Include item type, size and interruptions over a stated period. Five easy completions alone can hide blocked work.
- Yes, supported by evidence
- Partly, with known gaps
- No, the check is not met
- Unknown, not verified
Flow evidence
Are acceptance criteria settled before substantial implementation?
Review when requirements changed and why. Discovery work may legitimately create new information rather than represent rework.
- Yes, supported by evidence
- Partly, with known gaps
- No, the check is not met
- Unknown, not verified
Queues and dependencies
Is concurrent work limited to available delivery and review capacity?
Inspect aging items and interruptions. High utilization does not prove high throughput.
- Yes, supported by evidence
- Partly, with known gaps
- No, the check is not met
- Unknown, not verified
Queues and dependencies
Are external dependency dates and escalation owners visible?
Include environments, data, decisions and approvals. Waiting on a client or another team is not automatically an engineering productivity defect.
- Yes, supported by evidence
- Partly, with known gaps
- No, the check is not met
- Unknown, not verified
Feedback and intervention
Does review and test feedback arrive before expensive downstream work?
Use review wait times, test duration and escaped defects. Faster feedback must still preserve necessary checks.
- Yes, supported by evidence
- Partly, with known gaps
- No, the check is not met
- Unknown, not verified
Feedback and intervention
Can one change be evaluated without claiming all delay is removable?
Define the intervention owner, observation period and comparable outcomes. A shorter timeline may reflect easier work or fewer interruptions.
- Yes, supported by evidence
- Partly, with known gaps
- No, the check is not met
- Unknown, not verified
How this tool works
Each selected answer maps to a stated observation and a check to perform. Answers are not weighted, added together, or converted into a score, diagnosis, or automatic recommendation.
An unknown answer identifies evidence to collect. Review each observation against your system and constraints; one favorable answer does not establish overall readiness or fit.
Model assumptions
- No team efficiency percentage is calculated from subjective answers.
- Responses are self-reported and have not been independently verified.
What most often stalls a committed item?
Unclear decisions: Decision latency may be the binding constraint.
Check: Record decision owner, deadline, and evidence needed.
Team handoffs: Cross-team queues may dominate elapsed time.
Check: Map one item from request to production with wait times.
Rework or defects: Quality feedback may be arriving too late.
Check: Inspect acceptance criteria and escape-defect patterns.
We have not measured it: Velocity labels hide the actual queue.
Check: Measure lead time and waiting time for five recent items.
Can you distinguish active work from waiting time?
Yes: Flow data can guide a focused change.
Check: Test one intervention and compare the next five items.
No: A percentage of lost capacity would be invented.
Check: Collect timestamped transitions before estimating impact.
Not sure: The system of work may not expose delay.
Check: Audit one recent delivery timeline.
Does the diagnosis use a representative set of completed and stalled items?
Yes, supported by evidence: The sample can support a bounded flow diagnosis.
Check: Retain sample selection and compare similar work types separately.
Partly, with known gaps: Some recent items are traced, but selection or size differences could distort the picture.
Check: Trace completed and stalled items with consistent timestamps and declared exclusions.
No, the check is not met: Anecdotes do not yet establish where elapsed time is spent.
Check: Trace completed and stalled items with consistent timestamps and declared exclusions.
Unknown, not verified: Missing evidence prevents a conclusion. Include item type, size and interruptions over a stated period. Five easy completions alone can hide blocked work.
Check: Trace completed and stalled items with consistent timestamps and declared exclusions.
Are acceptance criteria settled before substantial implementation?
Yes, supported by evidence: Delivery can distinguish intended discovery from avoidable acceptance churn.
Check: Track justified scope changes separately from missed acceptance requirements.
Partly, with known gaps: Common criteria are clear, but important exceptions are resolved late.
Check: Review one returned item with its requester and identify the earliest missing acceptance decision.
No, the check is not met: Engineering may finish work that cannot be accepted against an agreed outcome.
Check: Review one returned item with its requester and identify the earliest missing acceptance decision.
Unknown, not verified: Missing evidence prevents a conclusion. Review when requirements changed and why. Discovery work may legitimately create new information rather than represent rework.
Check: Review one returned item with its requester and identify the earliest missing acceptance decision.
Is concurrent work limited to available delivery and review capacity?
Yes, supported by evidence: Work admission accounts for the capacity of the full flow.
Check: Review aging and throughput after one bounded admission change.
Partly, with known gaps: Some limits exist, but blocked work or urgent interruptions evade them.
Check: Map active and waiting items, identify the constrained stage and agree an explicit admission rule.
No, the check is not met: Starting more items may increase waiting without increasing accepted delivery.
Check: Map active and waiting items, identify the constrained stage and agree an explicit admission rule.
Unknown, not verified: Missing evidence prevents a conclusion. Inspect aging items and interruptions. High utilization does not prove high throughput.
Check: Map active and waiting items, identify the constrained stage and agree an explicit admission rule.
Are external dependency dates and escalation owners visible?
Yes, supported by evidence: A dependency delay has a named route to resolution.
Check: Reconfirm dependency commitments when the delivery sequence changes.
Partly, with known gaps: Dependencies are listed, but dates or decision rights remain uncertain.
Check: Name the owner, required evidence and escalation deadline for the oldest blocked dependency.
No, the check is not met: A commitment may depend on work no one has agreed to deliver.
Check: Name the owner, required evidence and escalation deadline for the oldest blocked dependency.
Unknown, not verified: Missing evidence prevents a conclusion. Include environments, data, decisions and approvals. Waiting on a client or another team is not automatically an engineering productivity defect.
Check: Name the owner, required evidence and escalation deadline for the oldest blocked dependency.
Does review and test feedback arrive before expensive downstream work?
Yes, supported by evidence: The flow can detect important errors before they spread.
Check: Compare feedback delay and escaped defects after a targeted improvement.
Partly, with known gaps: Some feedback is timely, but a slow approval or test stage remains costly.
Check: Trace one escaped defect or rejected change to the first check that could have detected it.
No, the check is not met: Late feedback may be creating repeated rework or batch risk.
Check: Trace one escaped defect or rejected change to the first check that could have detected it.
Unknown, not verified: Missing evidence prevents a conclusion. Use review wait times, test duration and escaped defects. Faster feedback must still preserve necessary checks.
Check: Trace one escaped defect or rejected change to the first check that could have detected it.
Can one change be evaluated without claiming all delay is removable?
Yes, supported by evidence: The improvement can be assessed without a fabricated efficiency percentage.
Check: Compare matched item types and retain interruptions and adverse outcomes.
Partly, with known gaps: A change is planned, but its comparison or confounding factors are unclear.
Check: Choose one queue or handoff intervention and declare how its result will be reviewed.
No, the check is not met: The team risks changing several things and attributing any result to the preferred explanation.
Check: Choose one queue or handoff intervention and declare how its result will be reviewed.
Unknown, not verified: Missing evidence prevents a conclusion. Define the intervention owner, observation period and comparable outcomes. A shorter timeline may reflect easier work or fewer interruptions.
Check: Choose one queue or handoff intervention and declare how its result will be reviewed.
Hypothetical worked example
These illustrative inputs are not your result, a customer case, or a benchmark. Change the inputs above to review your own situation.
- What most often stalls a committed item?
- We have not measured it
- Can you distinguish active work from waiting time?
- Not sure
- Does the diagnosis use a representative set of completed and stalled items?
- Unknown, not verified
- Are acceptance criteria settled before substantial implementation?
- Unknown, not verified
- Is concurrent work limited to available delivery and review capacity?
- Unknown, not verified
- Are external dependency dates and escalation owners visible?
- Unknown, not verified
- Does review and test feedback arrive before expensive downstream work?
- Unknown, not verified
- Can one change be evaluated without claiming all delay is removable?
- Unknown, not verified
Use the evidence plan to validate your decision
8 applicable prompts reviewed. These are self-reported observations, not proof of readiness, a maturity grade or a recommendation to buy a service. Even an all-positive review needs supporting evidence.
- What most often stalls a committed item? Velocity labels hide the actual queue.
- Can you distinguish active work from waiting time? The system of work may not expose delay.
- Does the diagnosis use a representative set of completed and stalled items? Missing evidence prevents a conclusion. Include item type, size and interruptions over a stated period. Five easy completions alone can hide blocked work.
- Are acceptance criteria settled before substantial implementation? Missing evidence prevents a conclusion. Review when requirements changed and why. Discovery work may legitimately create new information rather than represent rework.
- Is concurrent work limited to available delivery and review capacity? Missing evidence prevents a conclusion. Inspect aging items and interruptions. High utilization does not prove high throughput.
- Are external dependency dates and escalation owners visible? Missing evidence prevents a conclusion. Include environments, data, decisions and approvals. Waiting on a client or another team is not automatically an engineering productivity defect.
- Does review and test feedback arrive before expensive downstream work? Missing evidence prevents a conclusion. Use review wait times, test duration and escaped defects. Faster feedback must still preserve necessary checks.
- Can one change be evaluated without claiming all delay is removable? Missing evidence prevents a conclusion. Define the intervention owner, observation period and comparable outcomes. A shorter timeline may reflect easier work or fewer interruptions.
Checks for this example
- Measure lead time and waiting time for five recent items.
- Audit one recent delivery timeline.
- Trace completed and stalled items with consistent timestamps and declared exclusions.
- Review one returned item with its requester and identify the earliest missing acceptance decision.
- Map active and waiting items, identify the constrained stage and agree an explicit admission rule.
- Name the owner, required evidence and escalation deadline for the oldest blocked dependency.
- Trace one escaped defect or rejected change to the first check that could have detected it.
- Choose one queue or handoff intervention and declare how its result will be reviewed.