An operational scenario illustrating the solution workflow and measurement indicators.
Clearer collections. Less time spent following up.
The coordinator matched registrations to payment evidence across scattered files and messages, while another staff member asked about the same cases again. In this model, follow-up took a combined 6 working hours per week. Request counts looked like realised revenue, while differing payment statuses obscured the amounts needing follow-up before the course began.
Proposed change
- The coordinator reviews applicants' accounts and course registrations, removes duplicates, and returns incomplete records for review before creating new collection actions.
- She prepares payment links for eligible requests and tracks payment status in the transaction log, distinguishing completed payments, pending requests, and cases that are not yet eligible.
- One designated staff member follows up the ten unpaid requests while the team reviews the six incomplete cases. The manager measures reconciliation and follow-up time for the same work cycle to assess the effect on time costs.
Expected result after implementation
Gross collections from 32 paid requests
Value of 10 requests awaiting payment; not realised revenue
Requests excluded from collection until reviewed
Where does the effect on time and cost appear?
A comparison of the same weekly task, valuing team time at SAR 90 per hour.
Assumed difference: 5 hours per week, worth SAR 450 of team time that could be redirected to learner support or following up requests.
Reassigning the time of a salaried employee does not automatically reduce cash expenditure. The difference is only an actual financial saving if a cost, such as overtime or outsourced work, changes and that change is measured.
Assumed collections equal 32 × SAR 750 before fees, taxes, and refunds, with no discounts. Pending requests are follow-up opportunities, not guaranteed sales. Time and cost figures are model assumptions; they do not demonstrate actual savings or revenue growth.
