Duplicate requests can arise because staff cannot tell whether another team already owns the issue. Film the ownership check that should happen before a second request is raised.
Show how to identify an existing owner and when a separate request is justified.
Show the ownership check before the second submission
Ask the process owner what evidence tells a colleague that an issue already has an owner. It may be a reference number, status field or named coordinator. The film should demonstrate that evidence using fictional data, rather than advise people vaguely to check first.
Explain what the check does not establish. Two requests can look similar while representing different work. A shared customer name or subject line is not necessarily enough to merge them. The authorised process should determine when items are linked, redirected or kept separate.
Give waiting work a legitimate response
Employees may raise duplicates because they do not know how to ask about an existing request. Show the approved status or escalation route so the film does not simply tell them to be more patient. If a request has no visible owner, identify the process for resolving that gap.
The example should preserve the responsibility of the person who notices the issue. Finding an existing reference may mean adding information or contacting the owner, not abandoning the matter. Make that next step explicit.
Use neutral language about duplication. A film that mocks repeat requests can discourage people from raising genuine problems. The purpose is to improve coordination, and the scenario should show how incomplete visibility can lead reasonable colleagues to act twice.
For acceptance, ask viewers to work through a matched pair: one true duplicate and one related but distinct task. They should identify the evidence that changes the route. Have the process owner verify the answer before production treats it as authoritative. The final resource should clarify ownership and communication, not encourage employees to delete records, merge work or suppress a new concern without the appropriate authority.
Commissioning checks
| Input | Why it changes production |
|---|---|
| Current request identifiers | Demonstrate the lookup using fictional data |
| Ownership visibility | Explain the handoff boundary |
| Rules for separate work | Show the exception that needs a new request |
An illustrative application
Imagine two departments both receive the same client issue. The film shows checking the shared reference and contacting the existing owner. A separate task is opened only when the approved process requires it, not because the original request seems slow. This example is hypothetical, not a Live Images project.
Ask whether the viewer can distinguish linking related work from deleting a legitimate separate request. Do not expose live client details or imply that all duplicate-looking records are errors.
Discuss the production brief
Use the completed brief when you enquire with Live Images. Check the current service offering and agree who supplies the relevant subject expertise before committing to production.
Source and scope
Australian Government Style Manual video and audio is relevant background, checked 30 October 2026. This is original commissioning guidance, not legal, employment, safety or regulated professional advice. Prepared with AI assistance for Live Images.