This Recipes program is currently in pilot, and we'd love to hear your feedback! Once you've finished this recipe, please consider taking a moment to complete this short survey to help us improve our current and future recipes.
Overview
Insights Charts are often used to visualize data found within your contracts, but they can also be used to display metrics related to workflow efficiency. This report combines eight Charts that guide you through a process of improving workflow efficiency.
The goals of this recipe are to:
- Measure Workflow Performance
- Identify Workflows to Improve
- Identify Specific Areas of a Workflow to Improve
- Update a Workflow
- Measure the Effect of Workflow Improvements
Use Case
Perhaps you have the feeling that your workflows could be improved in some way, but choosing where to start feels like an overwhelming task. This recipe will help you decide both which workflow to start with, and provide suggestions for how to make the workflow more efficient. Finally, it includes instructions for how to tweak the report in order to measure the result of improvements you make.
What You'll Need
| Features | Insights, Workflow Designer |
| Permissions | Insights, Workflow Designer |
Supporting Resources
Instructions
To build an Insights report to help you monitor and improve workflow efficiency, follow the steps below in order:
Build the Charts
In Ironclad, click on the Insights tab and create the following charts.
Chart 1: Completed Contracts by WF
The purpose of this chart is to help with the initial decision of choosing a workflow to improve. While it may feel obvious to choose the workflow that takes the longest to complete, this isn’t always the best choice. If the slowest workflow isn’t used very often, then speeding it up won’t offer much total benefit. Beyond that, if you’re looking to measure the savings from any potential changes, then a high-volume workflow offers a better chance to accumulate enough complete workflows to measure the result.
| Settings | |
|---|---|
| Chart Type | Column |
| Category | Workflow Configuration |
| Range | Count |
| Filters | ||
|---|---|---|
| Date Executed | Last 180 Days | |
| Stage | is | Completed |
Chart 2: Execution Time by WF
The purpose of this chart is to help identify a workflow to target for improvement. The most direct measurement of a workflow’s efficiency is how long it takes to complete. While reading this chart, you should also keep in mind your expectations for each workflow or record type. For example, if two workflows are taking the same amount of time to complete, but you know that one is more complex than the other, then the simpler workflow would make a better target for improvement.
| Settings | |
|---|---|
| Chart Type | Bar |
| Category | Workflow Configuration |
| Range | Median of Execution Time (Days) |
| Filters | ||
|---|---|---|
| Date Executed | Last 180 Days | |
| Stage | is | Completed |
Chart 3: Distribution of Paper Source
The purpose of this chart is to provide additional context for any potential workflow you might improve. The blank Workflow Configuration filter is there for you to add in any single workflow that you are considering. Whether you are still choosing a candidate for improvement, or looking for a specific place to improve, it can be helpful to know whether the paper source is mixed or not. If a workflow is split between paper sources, you can also look closer into the median completion time for each Paper Source.
| Settings | |
|---|---|
| Chart Type | Doughnut |
| Category | Paper Source |
| Range | Count |
| Filters | ||
|---|---|---|
| Stage | is | Completed |
| Workflow Configuration | is | [blank] |
Chart 4: Final Draft on Template %
The purpose of this chart is to help you identify possible bottlenecks leading to a longer workflow completion time. Final Draft on Template only applies to workflows on your paper, and designates whether the template was redlined at all or not. The blank Workflow Configuration filter is there for you to add in any single workflow that you are considering.
Similar to Paper Source, this Chart both provides additional information about a given workflow and suggests whether it’s worth checking if your Workflow has different completion time depending on whether the final draft is on template.
| Settings | |
|---|---|
| Chart Type | Doughnut |
| Category | Final Draft on Template |
| Range | Count |
| Filters | ||
|---|---|---|
| Stage | is | Completed |
| Workflow Configuration | is | [blank] |
Chart 5: Review Step Duration per WF
The purpose of this chart is to provide a more detailed view into how long each individual step in your chosen workflow is taking. By identifying a specific workflow step as your starting point, you provide yourself with some clear next steps in terms of improvements.
| Settings | |
|---|---|
| Chart Type | Bar |
| Category | Workflow Configuration |
| Range | Median of Review Step Duration |
| Filters | ||
|---|---|---|
| Date Executed | Last 180 Days | |
| Stage | is | Completed |
Chart 6: Sign Step Duration per WF
The purpose of this chart is to provide a more detailed view into how long each individual step in your chosen workflow is taking. By identifying a specific workflow step as your starting point, you provide yourself with some clear next steps in terms of improvements.
| Settings | |
|---|---|
| Chart Type | Bar |
| Category | Workflow Configuration |
| Range | Median of Sign Step Duration |
| Filters | ||
|---|---|---|
| Date Executed | Last 180 Days | |
| Stage | is | Completed |
Chart 7: Archive Step Duration per WF
The purpose of this chart is to provide a more detailed view into how long each individual step in your chosen workflow is taking. By identifying a specific workflow step as your starting point, you provide yourself with some clear next steps in terms of improvements.
| Settings | |
|---|---|
| Chart Type | Bar |
| Category | Workflow Configuration |
| Range | Median of Archive Step Duration |
| Filters | ||
|---|---|---|
| Date Executed | Last 180 Days | |
| Stage | is | Completed |
Chart 8: # of Approvals per WF
The purpose of this chart is to provide an additional layer of data for the Review step. Since the Review step contains more possible actions and improvements than either Sign or Archive, this Chart provides a useful point of comparison with other workflows.
| Settings | |
|---|---|
| Chart Type | Column |
| Category | Workflow Configuration |
| Range | Median Number of Approvals |
| Filters | ||
|---|---|---|
| Date Executed | Last 180 Dats | |
| Stage | is | Completed |
Notes on Chart Design Choices
- Column and Bar charts show exactly the same information. For this Report, Charts that count number of contracts display in columns, while Charts that display time duration display in bars.
- Most Charts filter the included records to only show those from the past 180 days. This is done for two reasons:
- Efficiency numbers in many categories can change over time as a result of an initial learning curve and early feedback.
- Workflow configuration numbers and percentages can change as additional workflows and record types are added to Ironclad.
- The two doughnut charts do not use this filter as their data is not as subject to change over time in the same way.
Build the Report
- Create a new report that includes all 8 charts. Be sure to keep the order the same as listed below.
- Set the report to show 2 charts at a time, side-by-side.
Use the Report
There are four steps to using this report:
Step 1 — Identify a Workflow Configuration to Improve
- Use charts 1-2 (Complete Contracts by WF and Execution Time by WF) to identify a workflow configuration to improve.
- In general, you’re looking for a workflow that is both slow and high volume.
Step 2 — Identify a Section of the Workflow to Improve
- Using charts 3-4 (Distribution of Paper Source and Final Draft on Template %), determine how predictable and repetitive the contracts are.
- Chart 3 (Distribution of Paper Source) is relevant for workflows that allow both your paper and 3PP.
- Chart 4 (Final Draft on Template %) is relevant for workflows that use your paper, always or part of the time.
- More predictable — On your paper, finishes on your template often.
- Less predictable — On counterparty paper, your template is often changed.
- Using charts 5-8 (Review Step Duration per WF, Sign Step Duration per WF, Archive Step Duration per WF, # of Approvals per WF), identify possible bottleneck steps within the workflow.
- This provides a starting point for analyzing the workflow itself, looking for areas to improve.
Step 3 — Make Improvements
Choosing an effective solution depends heavily on how your specific workflow configuration is set up. With that said, here are a few general solutions to consider based on what you identified using the report.
More Predictable Contracts
If a workflow is predictable, then it can be more heavily planned for. Speeding up predictable steps typically involves automating as much of the workflow as possible. If certain sections of a workflow can’t be automated entirely, then we suggest using conditions in order to automate those steps when possible.
Example Solutions:
- Create conditional approvals that are only triggered some of the time
- Skip optional steps such as Signature Coordinator and Archiver.
Less Predictable Contracts
Less predictable contracts don’t offer the same opportunities for automation. Instead, these workflows benefit from tools that are built to expedite the negotiation process.
Example Solutions:
- AI Playbooks
- AI Assist (specifically, Precise Redlining)
- Jurist
Review Step
The Review step has the widest variety of features and actions, which can make it the most difficult to target with a specific improvement. We’ve provided several options below, but it might be helpful to seek out feedback on specific specific parts of the Review step to streamline.
Example Solutions:
- AI Playbooks/AI Assist
- Automate adding users to the workflow based on conditions
- Organize metadata fields into labeled categories
- Make some of your approvals conditional
Sign Step
There are three primary parts of the Sign step: the Signature Coordinator’s actions, counterparty signers, and your company’s signers. Your options to improve the signing experience might depend on which eSignature platform you’re using.
Example Solutions:
- Bypass the Signature Coordinator role altogether
- If the agreement is on your paper, consider whether your signature block can be improved
Archive Step
There are two primary ways to speed up the Archive step: skip it under certain conditions, or provide structure to make the work more efficient.
Example Solutions:
- Automate the Archive step, either bypassing it altogether or under certain conditions
- Reorder your metadata into labeled categories that indicate what does and doesn’t need to be validated
- Use RunAI (from the Dashboard) once the workflow is complete
Step 4 — Return to the Data and Measure Improvement
- To measure potential improvement coming from these changes, you can update the chart type of specific charts to be Timeseries.
- Since Timeseries charts show how these numbers have changed over time, you can look for a reduction in execution time to validate the success of your changes.
- With Timeseries charts, you’ll also have to choose two more data points: data reference and a time increment.
- For most cases, we suggest [Date Executed] by [Month].
- Make sure your filter settings allow you to see a few months before you made the change, so you can determine if your changes were a real inflection point, or if the numbers were already going down for some other reason (such as users getting more comfortable in the system, if your company, or their department, is still new to Ironclad).