How One Company Reduced Its Document Approval Cycle by 60%

Many companies face the same document approval challenge. Contracts, purchase requests, policies, letters, and reports do not move directly from creation to final approval. They pass through preparation, review, feedback, revision, approval, signing, and archiving.

When these stages are managed through email, phone calls, and shared folders, it becomes difficult to know the document’s status, current owner, and time spent at each stage.

In this case study, a company reorganized its approval cycle by building a digital workflow with Mstnd. Three months after implementation, the average approval time decreased from five business days to two, representing a 60% improvement.

1. How Approvals Were Managed Before

The company relied on email and manual follow-up to review and approve documents.

An employee would send a document to the first reviewer, wait for feedback, update the file, and send it to another approver. In many cases, several versions of the same document existed across inboxes, shared folders, and employee devices.

This process created several problems:

• No clearly identified final version.
• Unclear ownership at each stage.
• Delays when an approver was unavailable.
• Feedback lost across email threads.
• Heavy dependency on calls and manual reminders.
• No centralized record of reviews and decisions.
• Limited ability to measure the time spent at each stage.

The average approval cycle took five business days, while some requests required a full week or longer because of missing information or delayed follow-up.

2. Identifying the Real Causes of Delay

Before automating the process, the company analyzed the existing approval cycle to identify its actual bottlenecks.

The problem was not only the number of approvers. It was also the way documents moved between them. There was no standardized path, defined review period, or clear owner responsible for following up.

Some requests also entered the process without complete information or required attachments, forcing employees to restart part of the cycle.

The main causes of delay were:

• No standardized approval path.
• No defined timeline for each stage.
• Incomplete requests.
• No automated notifications.
• Unclear current ownership.
• Multiple document versions.
• No escalation for overdue reviews.
• Dependency on individual follow-up.

3. Redesigning the Process Before Automation

The company did not simply convert its old process into an electronic version.

Automating a disorganized process does not automatically improve it. The company first reviewed every step, removed unnecessary stages, and identified which cases required approval, review, or notification only.

It also defined:

• The person responsible for each stage.
• The allowed review period.
• Approval and rejection rules.
• Mandatory attachments.
• Conditions for returning documents.
• Escalation rules.
• Responsibility for storing the final approved version.

The revised process was then implemented as a digital workflow in Mstnd.

4. Building the Digital Workflow in Mstnd

The new process started with request creation and document attachment, followed by validation before routing the request to the first reviewer.

The workflow included:

1. Creating the request and attaching the document.
2. Entering the required information and reference number.
3. Validating mandatory fields and attachments.
4. Automatically routing the request to the correct reviewer.
5. Recording comments inside the request.
6. Returning the document for revision when necessary.
7. Sending reminders before the review deadline.
8. Escalating overdue requests automatically.
9. Recording approval or rejection decisions.
10. Saving the final approved version.
11. Archiving the document with its complete activity history.

Documents began moving through one controlled path instead of being distributed across inboxes and folders.

5. Starting with One Process

The company did not automate all approval processes at once.

It selected one frequently used process with a clear operational impact and initially tested it with a limited group across two departments.

The pilot helped the company:

• Simplify the request form.
• Remove unnecessary fields.
• Adjust the approval sequence.
• Clarify return and rejection reasons.
• Improve notifications.
• Define escalation conditions.

After the first phase succeeded, the workflow was expanded to four departments and several document types.

6. Standardizing Forms and Required Information

Missing data was one of the main reasons requests were returned or delayed.

The company created a standardized form for each request type and defined the information and attachments required before the approval cycle could begin.

Each document received:

• A reference number.
• A clear type and classification.
• A responsible department.
• A request owner.
• A current status.
• A defined timeline for each stage.
• A complete comment history.
• An activity and decision history.
• A clearly identified final approved version.

This reduced requests returned because of missing information by 35%.

7. Automated Notifications and Escalation

Under the previous process, employees relied on calls and reminder messages to follow up on delayed requests.

After implementing Mstnd, the system notified reviewers as soon as documents arrived and sent reminders before the review deadline.

If the deadline was exceeded, the request followed the defined escalation path, such as notifying the department manager or routing it to an alternative approver.

This prevented documents from remaining unattended because of workload, absence, or oversight.

8. Results After Three Months

Three months after implementation, the company compared the new process with the previous one.

The results included:

• Average approval time decreased from five business days to two.
• Approval cycle time improved by 60%.
• Overdue requests decreased by 50%.
• Requests returned because of missing information decreased by 35%.
• Dependency on email and phone follow-up decreased.
• Current ownership became clear.
• Document status became easy to identify.
• The final approved version became clearly accessible.
• Comments, reviews, and decisions became centrally available.
• Management could measure the duration of each stage.
• Bottlenecks became easier to identify.

9. The Impact Went Beyond Speed

Reducing approval time was the most visible result, but the company achieved other operational benefits.

Employees could check request status without repeatedly contacting other departments. Management gained visibility into open and overdue requests, average approval duration, and departments requiring improvement.

The audit trail also reduced disagreements about who received a document, when comments were added, and who approved or rejected it.

The company also eliminated confusion caused by files named:

• Final version.
• New final version.
• Latest final version.
• Updated approved version.

The official approved copy became clearly identified and stored in the system.

10. Why the Project Succeeded

The project succeeded because of several practical decisions:

• The process was analyzed before automation.
• Unnecessary steps were removed.
• Responsibilities were clearly assigned.
• A timeline was defined for every stage.
• Forms and required attachments were standardized.
• Implementation started with a limited scope.
• Users participated in the pilot.
• The workflow was improved before expansion.
• Performance was measured before and after implementation.
• Automated notifications replaced manual follow-up.

Technology was part of the solution, but process redesign was the critical factor.

11. How Mstnd Helps Accelerate Approval Cycles

Mstnd helps companies build structured digital workflows for reviewing and approving documents, with task assignment, responsibility management, and timeline monitoring.

With Mstnd, teams can identify:

• The current request status.
• The responsible person.
• Time spent at each stage.
• Recorded comments.
• Decisions made.
• Previous versions.
• The final approved version.
• The complete activity history.

Documents, attachments, comments, reviews, and decisions can be stored in one place instead of being distributed across email and shared folders.

Conclusion

This case study shows that reducing approval cycle time does not necessarily require replacing every company system.

Improvement can begin by standardizing requests, organizing documents, assigning clear ownership, and automating reminders and escalation.

When every document has a clear path, responsible owner, defined timeline, and traceable history, manual follow-up decreases, delays are reduced, and approval becomes faster and more controlled.

Internal editorial note: Publish this article as a verified customer case study only after confirming that the figures represent real and provable results.