Philippines staffing research ·
Can a decision register reduce lost executive follow-up?
A prospective paired review of decision traceability, ownership, and overdue actions in executive support.
Key Stats
GAO data-reliability guidance asks whether evidence is sufficiently reliable for its intended use. It does not prescribe a universal completeness target for executive records.
Methodology
Scope: a prospective six-week review of eligible internal meetings with an approved source packet and at least one recorded decision. Compare a baseline period with shadow use of a decision register. Sample by meeting type and decision sensitivity, and have an independent reviewer recode 20% of eligible records. No client systems, meeting recordings, personal data, or production records were accessed for this desk-research protocol.
Key Takeaways
The primary unit is an eligible decision, not a meeting. Before collection, define what counts as a decision, which meetings qualify, the observation cutoff, and how reversals or superseding instructions are recorded.
Measure source-linked decisions, named decision owners, named action owners, due dates, later status verification, disagreements, and overdue actions. Report the numerator and eligible denominator for every rate.
Philippines-based executive support may prepare entries and request confirmation. Executives retain authority over decision wording, confidentiality, priority, delegation, and any change to an instruction.
Inference boundary and limitations: The design is observational. Selection effects, changes in case mix, missing records, reviewer learning, policy changes, seasonality, and work completed outside the tracked system can explain an observed difference. Results do not establish causation, worker quality, compliance, or business impact.
Interpretation is limited to the sampled meeting types, teams, source practices, and six-week period. A more complete register may improve traceability without improving the quality or timeliness of the decisions themselves.
Observation record
Capture meeting class, decision identifier, approved source, wording confirmation, owners, due date, status evidence, reversal link, missingness, reviewer, and cutoff.
Analysis plan
Compare distributions and paired completeness fields by meeting class. Publish exclusions and reviewer disagreements; do not combine unverified and verified completion.
Next step
Pilot the register with one meeting class, a named executive reviewer, and a short evidence checklist.
FAQs
Would fewer overdue actions prove the register caused the change?
No. Workload, meeting mix, management attention, and concurrent process changes may account for the difference.
Does the study evaluate executive decision quality?
No. It evaluates whether sampled decisions and follow-up evidence are traceable under the stated rules.
Sources
- https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-20-283g
- https://www.nist.gov/director/nist-information-quality-standards
- https://www.gov.uk/service-manual/measuring-success/how-to-set-performance-metrics-for-your-service