We Automated the Approval and Kept Every Day of the Wait
The project was pitched as reducing our change lead time, and it succeeded at exactly the thing it measured. Raising a change request used to mean a form, three emails and a spreadsheet. Afterwards it meant a pull request template that opened a ticket, notified the approvers, collected their sign-off in the tool and attached the evidence automatically. Genuinely good work. Lead time from request…
The automated approval process succeeded in reducing change lead time, but did not speed up the overall process. The delay was not in the paperwork, but in weekly board meetings where approvals waited for Thursday. The old system required a form, three emails and a spreadsheet, while the new system replaced this with a pull request template that opened a ticket, notified approvers, collected their sign-off in the tool and attached the evidence automatically.
The new system looked professional, with all states logged and throughput healthy. However, the four-day wait time remained, making the automation seem ineffective. The author emphasizes the importance of understanding the actual process, including its delays, before automating. Without knowing where the work sits and for how long, automation may not yield the desired results.
Written by urgent.news from Dev.to's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
