iteration log

Submission Workflow

Four versions to decide who absorbs the variance when work backs up

format

Standard operating procedure

scope

Commission intake

ownership

Built & owned end-to-end

01 what i built

This is the workflow I reworked longest — across my entire tenure. The company kept growing, and with it the volume of work moving through review, so the system needed near-constant adjustment. The mechanics barely changed; each version moved work from submission to review to onboarding in roughly the same steps. What changed every time was who absorbed the variance.

Version one was unstructured: submit any amount, any time, all costs on us. Demand was unpredictable and quality uneven, so the pipeline couldn't plan. Version two overcorrected into a single annual window — predictable for the company, punishing for artists. Miss the window, and you fell behind for a year, and for a population where producing and shipping work is already effortful, one date concentrated all the pressure in the wrong place. Rolling intake came next — submit anytime, with a per-artist limit each quarter — and it was better, but intake never paused, so it still arrived unevenly and outran what capture and post-production could absorb. It also let the most prolific artists compound their advantage: more submissions, more feedback, more sales, while quieter artists fell further behind.

The fourth version resolved it. Instead of a per-artist limit on continuous intake, a quarterly cap bounded the whole batch of submissions each quarter and reviewed it on a fixed cycle — which matched intake to what capture and post-production could absorb, and made budget forecasting more reliable. It also allocated access deliberately: the cap held submission slots so high-engagement artists couldn't crowd out the quieter ones.

02 the artifact

SUBMISSION

Quarterly cap + fixed review cycle

replaced rolling intake

VERSION

OPTIMIZED FOR

VARIANCE LANDED ON

WHY IT BROKE / HELD

Unstructured

artist convenience, nothing else

the team — an unplannable pipeline

Any volume, any time — capture load unplannable, quality uneven, budget unforecastable.

Annual window

company predictability + tight budget control

the artists — one date carried all of it

One date a year — all pressure on the artist; miss it, wait a year.

Rolling intake

flexibility — submit anytime

the quieter artists — crowded out

Per-artist limit, but intake never paused — outran capture/post; prolific artists compounded advantage.

Quarterly cap

IT HELD

throughput + equity + forecastability

planned capacity the program controlled — by choice

Bounded count per quarter (~10–15 physical / ~20–30 digital), reviewed on a fixed cycle.

CAP MECHANICS

Submissions are reviewed as one filtered set each cycle — department heads weigh in on work that’s already cleared first-pass capture and screening, not raw intake.

December–January is closed to submissions — vendor schedules and internal capacity are both thin, so the window would only produce a backlog.

The December surge is forecast every year and redirected, soft-touch, toward summer — fewer competing submissions, and no pushback from the artists.

Review itself moved async, replacing serial review meetings — reviewers work the set on their own time instead of converging in a standing meeting.

↳ the cap decides where the variance sits — that's the whole redesign

SUBMISSION

Quarterly cap +
fixed review cycle

replaced rolling intake

Unstructured

artist convenience, nothing else

the team — an unplannable pipeline

Any volume, any time — capture load unplannable, quality uneven, budget unforecastable.

Annual window

company predictability + tight budget control

the artists — one date carried all of it

One date a year — all pressure on the artist; miss it, wait a year.

Rolling intake

flexibility — submit anytime

the quieter artists — crowded out

Per-artist limit, but intake never paused — outran capture/post; prolific artists compounded advantage.

Quarterly cap

IT HELD

throughput + equity + forecastability

the program — capacity had to be planned, not absorbed

Bounded count per quarter (~10–15 physical / ~20–30 digital), reviewed on a fixed cycle.

CAP MECHANICS

Submissions are reviewed as one filtered set each cycle — department heads weigh in on work that’s already cleared first-pass capture and screening, not raw intake.

December–January is closed — vendor schedules and internal capacity are both thin, so the window would only produce a backlog. The December surge is forecast every year and redirected, soft-touch, toward summer: fewer competing submissions, no pushback.

Review moved async, replacing serial review meetings — reviewers work the set on their own time. Cut review time by more than half.

03 What it proved

50%+

reduction in review and decision timelines — from moving review async, not from the cap

4

versions to land the structure that held — each change driven by artist feedback and throughput data

December

surge forecast and redirected to summer every year — no backlog, no artist pushback

Every version of this workflow worked mechanically. The earlier ones just left the variance on whoever was least able to absorb it — sometimes the artists, when a single annual date fell on whoever couldn’t make it; sometimes the team, when that same window landed a year’s worth of work at once and slowed everyone’s turnaround; sometimes the quieter artists a rolling pipeline let fall behind. The fourth version was right because it made that a deliberate choice: the cap decided where the variance would sit — on planned capacity the program controlled — instead of leaving it on whoever couldn’t absorb it, and held slots so the most consistent high-volume submitters couldn’t crowd out the rest.

← Previous artifact

Scanner Network

← Read artifact

Next artifact →

Architecting a Saleable Collection

Read artifact →