Separating fast decisions from rushed decisions
Speed is compatible with good judgement when authority, evidence and reversibility are clear before the request arrives.
The performance question
A low value purchase and a major contract do not need identical approval routes. Rushing means skipping information essential to the choice, not merely making it quickly. Overcomplicated governance can itself create unmanaged pressure by forcing routine decisions into senior queues.
What the evidence supports
HSE’s Role standard asks organisations to make responsibilities clear and requirements compatible. Its workload guidance recommends clear priorities when demand is high. These principles support proportionate routes, but do not establish a universal time allowance for decisions.[1][2]
A practical approach
Define a fast route for decisions within agreed limits and readily reversible commitments. Give the owner a short evidence requirement and a record of the decision. Reserve fuller review for material downside, uncertainty or commitments that cannot easily be undone. Keep specialist legal and safety requirements intact regardless of value.
How to review progress
Inspect a sample from each route for missing information, completion time and rework. If the fast route repeatedly produces exceptions, revise its limits. If the fuller route adds no useful challenge, simplify the process rather than instructing people to work faster.
Sources and references
- Management Standards: Role Opens in a new tab
Health and Safety Executive
Compatible requirements and clear responsibilities
- Human factors: Workload Opens in a new tab
Health and Safety Executive
Processing limits, task analysis, workload drift and staffing