Anonymised practitioner case study. The organisation, precise locations and dates are withheld to protect the client and its staff. Internal metrics are not published, and none has been invented in their place.
The client
An organisation running a country office in a Horn of Africa capital, with staff moving daily between a secured compound, the airport, government offices and partner premises.
The problem
Movement was constant and largely unmanaged. Approvals happened by message, often after departure. Nobody held a current picture of who was out, where, or when they were expected back, so nobody could tell when a vehicle was genuinely overdue.
The method: a three-question approval gate
Rather than write a lengthy journey management policy that nobody would read at 06:00, the approval was reduced to three questions a duty manager could answer in ninety seconds.
- Is this movement necessary today, and can the task be done another way?
- Do the current conditions on this route meet the agreed no-move criteria?
- Is there a named person expecting this vehicle back, at a stated time, with a means of contact that has been tested this week?
Anything answered 'no' either changed or did not move. A one-page movement log recorded vehicle, occupants, route, departure, expected return and the approver's name.
Overdue procedure
The step most often missing was written before anything else: what happens at the moment a vehicle is late. Fifteen minutes triggers a contact attempt; thirty minutes escalates to the security focal point; sixty minutes activates the incident procedure with the country director informed. Times were agreed in advance and rehearsed once.
What changed
The office gained a live picture of exposure and, for the first time, a defensible record of why each movement was authorised. Several routine trips were consolidated or dropped once someone was required to ask whether they were necessary.
Transferable lessons
- A short rule that is used beats a thorough policy that is not.
- Write the overdue procedure before the movement procedure.
- Give one named person the authority to refuse a movement.
- Test the communications method weekly, not at the point of need.