.jpg){kind=link}
- Published
- Updated
Action age reflects not only team performance but also the duration of an unresolved risk. Pausing a clock while awaiting an external response may explain workload, yet it should not conceal continuing exposure. Reports should distinguish total open time from the time directly controllable by the assigned team.
Scope of the decision
Connect waiting reasons to concrete dependencies, such as source evidence, an authorised decision or a vendor correction. Identify a follow-up owner and the next review point. Repeatedly moving a target date is not progress; it may require reassessment of the rationale and temporary protection.
Worked review
Suppose a laboratory correction is awaiting a technical explanation. Instead of merely showing on hold, the action report includes total days open, the last contact and temporary protection applied to new shipments. If the explanation does not arrive, escalation is decided visibly rather than silently postponing the calendar.
Practical checks
- Show total open time separately from waiting and active working time.
- Define the expected output and follow-up owner for each dependency.
- Reassess temporary protection when waiting extends beyond the assumed period.
Acceptance and limits
Tracking is useful when it explains both the delay and how the risk is being managed. Not every delay requires identical escalation. Waiting for another party does not remove responsibility; the record should identify who decides and when the issue will be reconsidered.
Frequently asked questions
- Is pausing a clock prohibited?
- Separate workload clocks may be useful if total open duration and risk remain visible.
- Does assigning a new date update the action?
- A date alone is insufficient. Explain evidence of progress and why the underlying circumstances changed.