Sess 7 Piso Prior Reading

COMM1F - Information Systems Engineering Session 7 - Process Improvement for Strategic Objectives Essential Reading Prior to Session 7 The ‘PROCESS IMPROVEMENT FOR STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES’ (PISO) approach to process re-engineering

An introduction to PISO Many managers have a desire for their organisations to become less disorganised, more efficient, more competitive, offer a faster service, mimimise stockholding whilst improving service level, improve manufacturing quality, etc. At the same time, many employed people feel that there are shortcomings in the systems and practices that they are asked to use. What if there were some way of empowering these individuals to come up with changes in their working practices changes that would not only make their lives easier but also satisfy the high level strategic aims of those who manage their organisations? - creating a two-way direct link between mission statement and daily activity? Here at The University of Sunderland we have developed an approach that does just that. We have called it Process Improvement for Strategic Objectives - PISO. The techniques that PISO uses are well-proven within computer systems analysis but here they are used in a new way, directly by users, to allow these techniques to engage with strategic business problems rather than computer systems development. Examples of user comments can be found in the appendix. There are three essential ingredients to PISO’s success. • It uses already proven computer systems analysis techniques. • It brings a new rationale to these techniques - i.e. the strategic objective. • It makes these techniques directly accessible to those affected by the changes - i.e. the stakeholders. The structured techniques employed by PISO can easily be learned and applied by anyone with an understanding of their own work environment. PISO projects were at first largely undertaken by full-time employees of organisations attending part-time HND, Degree, and Masters programmes at the University, but a series of specially-designed PISO seminars is now making the approach available to a wider public. PISO can initially be considered a stripped-down 'diy' version of Business Process Reengineering (BPR). Any process is appropriate for the PISO treatment however - it has for instance been applied to the re-engineering of manufacturing processes, with considerable success. The ‘diy’ aspect refers to the fact that the PISO approach is easy to learn and is intended to be used by the employees who actually carry out the functions that are being re-engineered. There is no need to hire in business consultants to undertake a PISO project - costing the project time and money whilst they first assimilate what employees already know. PISO has been found to have a high

success rate - and as well as being used on its own to improve a wide range of business and manufacturing processes, it has provided 'bogged-down' BPR projects with radically positive outcomes. PISO was originally designed to help part-time business students appreciate how useful structured computer systems analysis techniques can be in sorting out problems and inefficiencies in their day-to-day work. It uses the established dataflow diagramming (dfd) approach - and in particular dfd logicalisation - but in a new ‘business oriented’ way to allow the strategic objectives of an organisation to engage with the logicalisation process. PISO has now been developed into a full method, with the vast majority of users reporting the kind of positive results found in the appendix. PISO practitioners find that it allows them to use their own knowledge and creativity to come up with working solutions to identified problems - or at least reveal that the re-engineering being considered is simply not viable. At the time of writing almost 300 PISO projects have been undertaken - firstly by students from HND to Masters level, and joined more recently by attendees of the PISO seminars. The following is a typical example of ‘the PISO effect’ in practice, at Pinderfield and Pontefract Hospitals NHS Trust. The original system (figure 1) involved nine personnel, carrying out fourteen high-level processes. The strategic objective primarily demanded greater efficiency. After PISO only two personnel and two equivalent processes were needed (figure 2 overleaf). There is no need to read the diagrams in detail. Even those unfamiliar with dataflow diagramming will appreciate that the re-engineered system illustrates a significant change from the original. Fig 1 : Pinderfield and Pontefract example - system BEFORE PISO

GP Appointment request

1

GP Receptionist

GP appointm ent date

Maintain GP Appointments

Referral letter details

Out-patient recep

3

Process referral letter receipt

Appointm ent-dated

4

5

M1 Referral Letters folder Receipt-dated referral letter Appointm ent-dated referral letter A vailable dates

**

Out-patient recep

Selected date

*

Medical records

Administer appointment

Medical secretary

Process ‘Out-patien t decision’ letter W aiting list card

*

8

Clinic nurse Conduct clinic

Patient case notes

*

Patient case notes with consent form

Patient case notes with consent form Patient case notes with consent form ‘Out-patient decision’ letter

*

11

Waiting list card details

‘Confirm waiting list’ letter ‘To-come-in’ date

M3

Clinic Case Notes

M2

Patient Records

Out patient decision details

*

D2 GP Patient Database M4 Waiting List Diary

W aiting list card

13 Nurse co -ordinator Confirm ‘to-come-in’ date and details 14

‘To-come-in’ letter

*

Patient case notes with consen t form

*

GP Receptionist Record referral details

Waiting list officer

Maintain waiting list

Appointm en t details W aiting list outcom e details

Conduct consultation

‘Out-patient decision letter’ details

M3 Clinic Case Notes

Patient case notes

9 Consultant surgeon

Procedure consent

12

Patient case notes

Patient case notes

Waiting list outcom e form

Patient Records

Patient case notes

Out-patient recep

Appointm ent letter

M2

referral letter

*

7

10

Out-patient Module

One-week-out ‘pulling list’ A ppointm ent-dated

Prepare case notes for clinic

Procedure request

D4

R eferral & appointm ent details

Book appointment

6 Patient

Patient Admin System

D3

Receipt-dated referral letter

Consultant surgeon

A ppointm ent-dated referral letter

a

Referral letter details

*

Allocate appointment date

A ppointm ent letter

D2 GP Patient Database

*

Referral letter

referral letter

GP Appointment Diary

*

Authorise referral to hospital

Referral consent

D1

GP appointm ent date

GP

2

R eferral request

GP appointm ent request

Waiting list card

M5

Waiting List Box

M6

Theatre Diary

‘To-come-in’ date

*

Theatre date

Service co-o rd

Process ‘to-come-in’ letter

*

‘To-come-in’ date

Fig 2 : Pinderfield and Pontefract example AFTER PISO 1 Appointment request

Process GP appointment

Confirmed appointment

a Patient

GP Receptionist

Vasectomy request Vasectomy approval Information leaflets Consent forms

Available theatre slots Booked theatre slot

2

GP

Conduct vasectomy referral procedure

A large insurance company claims another PISO success - adopting PISO for all future changes, after successfully reorganising their customer service facility so that the telephone is always answered within 2 rings instead of an average 45 seconds hitherto. Other examples include substantial cost savings on a motor manufacturing line, significant time savings in a large bank’s credit card applications, and a vast amount saved in scheduling a railway. Another instance saw an initial small study by two HND business students develop into a major restructuring for the large international organisation that they worked for. There are many more examples, the quotes in the appendix being typical. PISO began almost accidentally, as an approach to teaching structured computer systems analysis to business students. The many successful projects arising out of this teaching have demonstrated that PISO provides employees with a means of bringing about radical but practical changes in their working practices, in line with the strategic objectives of their employers. There is now little doubt that the application of structured analysis techniques in the way recommended can produce practical solutions to workplace problems. The PISO Structured Systems Analysis Techniques seminar series consists of five seminars and can accommodate up to eight delegates. The seminars combine full training in the PISO method, with the potential for each delegate to come up with an immediate solution to an identified organisational problem. To give time for delegates to do this thoroughly, it is recommended that the five seminars take place over a five week period. These can be based at client sites, or at The Industry Centre. There is also a one week ‘residential version’ for clients who may wish employees from a wider geographical area to gain the PISO experience. For more details please contact Graeme Young at The Industry Centre.

Tel: 0191 5152666. Email: [email protected] David Deeks MSc CertEd FIAP Reader In Computing Practice University of Sunderland November 2000

The ‘PROCESS IMPROVEMENT FOR STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES’ approach to process re-engineering

The PISO method The PISO method is represented by a FRAMEWORK as seen in figure 1, consisting of numbered Stages divided into STEPS as follows: Stage 0 - steps 0.1 - 0.2: Identification of Problem Area Stage 1 - steps 1.1 - 1.5: Identification of Objectives Stage 2 - steps 2.1 - 2.3: Analysis of current system Stage 3 - steps 3.1 - 3.3: Design of re-engineered system As implied by the framework, stages 1 & 2 are largely undertaken ‘in parallel’. Stage 1 shows the involvement of stakeholders whilst stage 2 indicates much of the structured analysis work undertaken by the project analyst. This ‘in parallel’ approach illustrates the PISO emphasis upon stakeholders being closely and continuously involved with the analysis process - thus establishing part-ownership of, and responsibility for, the project. figure 1: The PISO FRAMEWORK

stage 0 identification of problem area

1.1

.

identify general 'problem area'

0.1

. .

0.2

define problem area boundaries

identify / refine strategic objective(s)

gather information 2.1 about current system

1.2 conduct stakeholder analysis stage 1 . identification of . objectives .

1.3

discover how stakeholder groups define strat objective(s)

1.4 establish operational objectives 1.5

prepare physical dfd of current system

2.2

stage 2 analysis of current system

logicalise dfd for 2.3 system efficiency

define dfd objectives 3.1

3.2

3.3

logicalise dfd for strategic objective(s) analyse and resolve conflicts between strategic objectives prepare physical dfd of recommended system

stage 3 design of re-engineered system

The PISO stages and steps are explained as follows: stage 0 - identification of problem area Step 0.1 Identify general ‘problem area’ within organisation Where it suspected that there is room for improvement. Specific problem does not have to have been identified. Step 0.2 Define boundaries of ‘problem area’ Initial assessment of scope of influence appropriate to improvement being considered - may vary as analysis takes place.

stage 1 - identification of objectives (in parallel with stage 2) Step 1.1 Identify and refine strategic objectives Can be objectives that operate at a business level but must be relevant to the specific problem area chosen (e.g.: in NHS - ‘patient care’). Step 1.2 Conduct stakeholder analysis Using 2.1 (Analyse Current Process Structure) and 2.2 (Construct Physical Data Flow Diagram) as a basis, identify stakeholders (e.g. external entities and those operating within processes) for the chosen problem area. Use other approaches (e.g. weighted matrix) to evaluate relative importance of stakeholders. Step 1.3. Discover how stakeholder groups define chosen strategic objective In operational terms - possibly use approaches such as in SSM/ETHICS. Each stakeholder group to prioritise objectives. Note danger of tactical objectives confusing strategic objectives. Step 1.4 Establish operational objectives Synthesise single set of operational objectives that satisfies greatest number of / most significant stakeholders. Step 1.5 Define dataflow diagram (dfd) objectives Specify operational objectives in terms appropriate to dfd notation. e.g.: an NHS example could have strategic objective of ‘improved patient care’. Some operational goals identified for achieving this could be: • reduce number of different types of staff coming into contact with patients • improve information available to patients • question demarcation of roles • make better use of skills - e.g. enriching jobs of suitably qualified nurses • use unskilled support workers to do tasks that do not require specific training These could be specified as follows: • processes that involve contact with patients, to be reduced in number • processes that provide information to patients, to be improved/introduced • dataflows to and from patients, to be reduced / improved / introduced as appropriate

stage 2 - analysis of current system (in parallel with stage 1) Step 2.1 Gather information about current system Use standard systems analysis techniques to capture current ‘system’ operating in identified problem area e.g. interviews, document examination, ‘walkthroughs’ etc. Step 2.2 Prepare physical dfd of current system Ensure final diagram has only ‘one process per functional area’ (this significantly aids logicalisation) Step 2.3 Logicalise dfd for system efficiency Create logicalised view of current system by following standard ‘SSADM logicalisation’ process. By stripping away all physical constraints, provides view of current system potentially operating as efficiently as possible. • dataflows 1 Replace documents with data (documents are a purely physical constraint) • datastores 2 Hold each entity in only one datastore (i.e. get rid of data duplication - it is rarely logical that data should be duplicated) 3 Remove or rename datastores that hold physical documents • processes 4 Remove people and places 5 Change experts into external entities 6 Remove processes that simply move data around within themselves

stage 3 - design of re-engineered system Step 3.1 Logicalise dfd to meet strategic objective Using dfd objectives derived in 1.5, enhance dfd created in 2.3, to create strategically logicalised dfd for analysis/negotiation. Iterate to 1.4 until acceptable convergence is achieved. 1 Do any components on the dataflow diagram get in the way of this dfd objective? If YES, delete the components 2 Do any components on the dataflow diagram need to be enhanced to meet this dfd objective? If YES, modify the components Do missing components prevent my objective being achieved? If YES, add the components Step 3.2 Analyse and resolve conflicts between strategic objectives Where conflict arises between strategic objectives, return to a previous step. • Return to 0.2 if a need to reconsider the boundaries of the process • Return to 1.1 if necessary to reconsider importance of different strategic objectives necessary (note: point of return dependent upon severity of conflict). Step 3.3 Prepare physical dfd of recommended system Create one or more physical dfd(s) demonstrating recommended physical implementation(s) of strategically modified logical dfd. If more than one physical outcome prepared, gain consensus among stakeholders as to chosen outcome. Two fundamental organisational questions … 1 Which person/department will do this? 2 How will it physically be made to happen? … that translate into dfd questions 1 Will existing functions/departments undertake the identified processes - or does the diagram indicate that one or more new ones are needed? 2 Have any existing functions/departments become unnecessary? 3 Is it necessary to re-introduce any physical documents / Manual datastores? (particularly appropriate to ‘official’ documents, or ones that have to be hand-completed by people outside the organisation)

4 Do computer Data stores indicate the need for extensions to an existing computer system - or a whole new one? 5 Do any external entities that were removed from the system need to be reinstated? (e.g. experts whose authority and/or subjective judgement is, after all, considered necessary within the system) David A Deeks MSc CertEd FIAP, Reader in Computing Practice, University of Sunderland, October 2000 (updated February 2001) The Following Artcle is taken from the IAP Yearbook with the permission of the Author.

PROCESS IMPROVEMENT FOR STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES (PISO®) … ‘workplace creativity driven by strategy’ D A Deeks MSc CertEd FIAP (Originator of the PISO® method)

Reader in Computing Practice, University of Sunderland ‘In seventeen years of I.T. business services, I have never seen nor used a method, paradigm nor business solution as effective, conclusive and simple, as the PISO® method.’ Graeme Lupton (IBM, Rank Xerox and consultant to North East Powder Coatings)

PISO® is a method for improving business processes. It provides a rapid means of designing real change in the workplace. Whilst it began almost by accident, it has now been used successfully in several hundred organisations, large and small. Its effects are almost always reliable, often radical. It is extremely cost-effective. Those familiar with Business Process Re-engineering (BPR) have found it useful to consider PISO® as a stripped-down, method-based, 'do-it-yourself'(‘diy’) version of it. The ‘method-based’ aspect refers to its clearly defined framework, with specified stages and steps. The ‘diy’ aspect refers to the fact that the PISO® approach is easy to learn and intended to be used by the employees who actually carry out the functions that are being re-engineered. A typical ‘business consultancy’ approach involves paying the business consultant a sometimes significant sum for the time s/he spends consulting with employees - i.e. learning what they know. PISO® takes the opposite approach, requiring an organisation to simply have a PISO® trainer spend a few hours teaching employees the analysis methods the consultant would use. The employees then use these techniques to agree and engineer changes. And because the changes have been worked out by themselves as ‘stakeholders’ in the changes, there is far less resistance to implementation. PISO® has been found to have a high success rate. As well as being used on its own to improve a wide range of business and manufacturing processes, it has provided 'bogged-down' BPR projects with radically positive outcomes. PISO® depends upon being able to graphically represent both physical and logical views of a circumstance and utilises data flow diagrams (dfds) for this purpose. PISO® uses them slightly differently however, to allow the strategic objectives of an organisation to engage with the

logicalisation process - without the assumption that the outcome will be a computer system. And remember - it is the ‘stakeholder employees’ who are undertaking the analysis. The application of PISO® can have a radical effect upon the ‘shape’ of an organisation - even when the overall aims of that organisation remain fairly static. Figure 1 shows a system in use by Pontefract General Infirmary at the beginning of the PISO® analysis, and figure 2 the reengineered outcome. Note that these are BOTH level 1 physical dfds - the second is in no way simply a ‘higher level view’ of the first, it represents a significantly simpler way of achieving the same outcome. This is because the strategic objective was to do just this - i.e. achieve the same outcome but much more efficiently. In broad terms, a strategic objective that emphasises efficiency aspects (achieve what we do now, but more quickly/cheaply) will tend to reduce the processes and complexity of an organisation’s systems. One that emphasises ‘quality’ aspects (achieve what we do now, but to a higher standard) may well have an opposite, but no less welcome, effect. And what if the aims of an organisation are NOT static - what if the strategic objective is to do something entirely different? PISO® will simply allow an efficiently re-engineered solution to be developed, limited only by the knowledge and creativity of those undertaking the analysis.

Figure 1 - Pontefract system BEFORE PISO GP Appointment request

1

GP Receptionist

GP appointm ent date

Maintain GP Appointments

Referral letter details

3

Out-patient recep Process referral letter receipt

Referral letter details

*

Appointment-dated

Allocate appointment date 5

M1 Referral Letters folder Receipt-dated referral letter Appointment-dated referral letter Available dates

**

Out-p atient recep

Selected date

6

*

Medical records

Administer appointment

Appointment letter

W aiting list card

Maintain waiting list

‘Confirm waiting list’ letter

8

Clinic nurse Conduct clinic

Patient case notes

*

Patient case notes with consent form

Patient case notes with consent form Patient case notes with consent form ‘Out-patient decision’ letter

*

12 Waiting list officer

‘To-come-in’ date

*

Medical secretary

Process ‘Out-patient decision’ letter

Appointment details Waiting list outcome details

Conduct consultation

‘Out-patient decision letter’ details

10

Patient case notes

9 Consultant surgeon

Procedure consent

M3 Clinic Case Notes

Patient case notes

Patient case notes

Waiting list outcome form

11

GP Receptionist Record referral details

Waiting list card details

*

Patient case notes with consent form

* M3

Clinic Case Notes

M2

Patient Records

Out patient decision details

*

D2 GP Patient Database M4 Waiting List Diary

W aiting list card

13 Nurse co -ordinator Confirm ‘to-come-in’ date and details

*

Waiting list card

Service co-ord Process ‘to-come-in’ letter

*

M5

Waiting List Box

M6

Theatre Diary

‘To-come-in’ date Theatre date

14 ‘To-come-in’ letter

Patient Records

Patient case notes

Out-patient recep

7

M2

referral letter

*

Procedure request

Out-patient Module

One-week-out ‘pulling list’ Appointment-dated

Prepare case notes for clinic

Patient

D4

Referral & appointment details

Book appointment

Appointment-dated referral letter

a

Patient Admin System

D3

Receipt-dated referral letter

4 Consultant surgeon

Appointment letter

D2 GP Patient Database

*

Referral letter

referral letter

GP Appointment Diary

*

Authorise referral to hospital

Referral consent

D1

GP appointm ent date

GP

2

Referral request

GP appointm ent request

‘To-come-in’ date

Figure 2 Pontefract system AFTER PISO 1 A pp oin tm ent requ est

GP Recep tionist P rocess GP appointm ent

C on firm ed app oin tmen t

*

a P atient

Vasectom y req uest Vasectom y app ro val In fo rm atio n leaflets C on sen t fo rms

A vailab le theatre slo ts B oo ked th eatr e slo t

2

GP

Conduct v ase ctom y refer ral procedure

*

At the time of writing, several hundred University of Sunderland students from HND to Masters level have undertaken PISO® projects, many based upon their own place of work, with extremely positive results. Angela Dixon, who prepared the diagrams above, was typical of these - with no prior knowledge of systems analysis techniques. Since November 2000, PISO® courses in a variety of modes have also been offered direct. Outcomes have been impressive. In a ‘one week residential’ course, a team of eight British Telecom employees came up with a means of making annual savings of several hundred thousand pounds. Another eight members of a ‘one seminar per week’ course helped South Tyneside General Hospital make significant reductions in waiting times for A&E patients with a broken hip - over 80% are now attended to within an hour. What was to become ‘PISO®’ began early in 1997 simply as a response to a class of disaffected part-time business students who couldn’t see why they were having to learn computer systems structured analysis techniques, particularly dfd logicalisation. A quickly prepared assignment allowed the class members to apply the techniques to solving problems within their own workplaces, rather than think in terms of computer systems development. The level of interest rose considerably - indeed, the most common feedback comments at the end of the whole module described how much the students had learned from this one aspect. Even more unexpected however was a rapid positive response from employers, with a number of telephone calls and more than one request to visit a company to explain the techniques that their employees were being taught in class. One of the first was Nike, with an outcome that showed fundamental improvements in their approach to customer service. By November 1997 this new use for dfd logicalisation (still unnamed as a method) was presented as an academic paper at the Manchester Metropolitan University Business Information Technology ‘Futures’ Conference, entitled ‘The future of BPR?’. Following extremely positive feedback that confirmed its academic soundness, in early 1998 colleague Helen Edwards gave the method its name and drew up its framework for the first time.

By January 2001, two PISO® articles had appeared in Visual Systems Journal and there followed a one day seminar for ‘Systems Professionals’ - mostly being VSJ readers who had expressed an interest. Strong response to this showed by now that not only end-users and academics endorsed the method - but also fellow systems professionals. Responses to a further article in the July/August 2001 issue confirmed this.

An increasing number of students from HND to Masters level continued to report impressive results with their projects in organisations such as The Co-operative Bank, Ikeda Hoover, Dell, Hull Social Services, etc. - over 350 projects by the last count in October 2001. Via the newly introduced courses, that year also saw British Telecom and South Tyneside General Hospital become active users - and the University of Sunderland began applying PISO® to a major reorganisation of its systems and processes. The PISO® method is represented by a framework of stages and steps, as shown in figure 3. As dfds are the core analysis technique, the steps that use dfds have been highlighted. It can be seen however that that there is more to PISO® than the use of dfds. In particular, note the parallel activities in stage 1. In PISO®, the ‘employee stakeholders’ are actively involved with the development to the point where many of them are expected to not only be conversant with but actively engaged in, the techniques that the method uses. The act of handing over the analysis techniques in this way, empowers these stakeholders. This motivates them to work together to come up with agreed operational objectives, and finally a workable solution. And because everyone has worked together to agree the outcome, there tend to be few of the common ‘people’ problems in implementing it.

identify general 'problem area'

stage 0 . 0.1 identification of . problem area . 0.2

1.1

PISO

TM TTM M

define problem area boundaries

identify / refine strategic objective(s)

gather information 2.1 about current system

1.2 conduct stakeholder analysis stage 1 . identification of . objectives .

1.3

discover how stakeholder groups define strat objective(s)

1.4 establish operational objectives 1.5

define dfd objectives 3.1

prepare physical dfd of current system

2.2

logicalise dfd for system efficiency

2.3

logicalise dfd for strategic objective(s)

3.2

analyse and resolve conflicts between strategic objectives

3.3

prepare physical dfd of recommended system

Figure 3 - The PISO® framework

stage 2 analysis of current system

stage 3 design of re-engineered system

The key to PISO’s successful use of dfds is the way it introduces a new ‘twist’ to the process of dfd logicalisation. It begins conventionally enough - stripping away all the physical constraints represented by a ‘current system’ dfd in order to gain an efficient view of what a system is achieving, and an insight into the policy behind it. The usual reason for doing this however is assumed rather than stated - i.e. the need is to design as efficient a computer system as possible. The PISO® difference begins by naming this first logicalisation stage ‘logicalisation for systems efficiency’ (see step 2.3) - because it is about to re-logicalise for a different reason and it is this second logicalisation stage, ‘logicalising for strategic objectives’ (step 3.1) that is the crux of the PISO® approach. Conventionally, this ‘new logical’ dfd would be completed by simply considering ‘add-ons’ or changed facilities that had been requested, and creating a diagram that incorporated these. Instead, PISO® demands that a agreed strategic objective to improve the business in some way, meet a need, solve a problem, is carefully defined before this second logicalisation is embarked upon. Instead of assuming that the aim is to create a computer system that will efficiently carry out the current way of going on (perhaps with a few juicy ‘extras’), PISO® gives the opportunity to ask not only ‘is the current way the right way?’ but ‘are we fundamentally doing the right thing?’ - and the re-engineered solution may or may not include changes to computer facilities, or recommendations for completely new ones, as part of the solution. It uses the knowledge and creativity of the employee stakeholders to first determine operational objectives in line with the strategic objective, then think of these in terms of ‘dfd objectives’, and then use these to reengineer the first logicalised dfd in order to create a new one. Finally, as with conventional systems analysis, a ‘new physical’ dfd is created (step 3.3) that represents a model for physical implementation - but with PISO® it now encapsulates the strategic objective. Those who would like to read more about the method will find a full description of PISO’s use of dfds in ‘An Introduction to Systems Analysis Techniques’ (2nd Edition), Lejk and Deeks, Addison Wesley, 2002. The figures in this article are from chapter 12. The book includes a full explanation as to how the Pontefract transformation came about, as well as other case study material. ‘The PISO® Project’ has now become a University of Sunderland business unit, not only delivering PISO® courses but also funding research and feeding latest developments back into teaching. This approach to continuous improvement is for instance resulting in an enhancement to allow PISO® to develop completely new scenarios (for new businesses etc) rather than improve existing ones, as well as a brand new technique for effective analysis of stakeholders developed by PhD researcher Jean Davison. First indications are that Jean’s technique will not only become a strong addition to PISO®, but will also have a life of its own outside the method within disciplines such as Human Resource Management. The fundamental PISO® approach remains the same however everything must be simple to learn, easy to apply, and effective in its outcome. PISO® courses are offered in a variety of modes - all based upon only 7.5 hours of subject delivery but also with different levels of workshop time dependent upon the mode chosen. All modes include email/telephone project support for 60 days. The courses assume no prior knowledge of systems analysis, and that every problem brought to a course will be solved - by the course members as stakeholders. In practice, workable outcomes often take far less time than the

60 days - the BT team for instance had a solution worked out by the end of their one week. The courses are fully certificated. Attendance brings a ‘PISO® Techniques’ certificate, and completion of a project can gain certification as ‘PISO® Practitioner’. Anyone with relevant qualifications/experience can further upgrade to become a ‘PISO® Trainer’, with their organisation becoming a ‘PISO® Licensed Centre’ - authorised to deliver PISO® training direct to their own employees. A sentence from a recent email typifies the level of interest and commitment that PISO® courses create: ‘Divisional managers are queuing up for courses - I want to PISO® everything!’ To cope with the increasing demand that such enthusiasm is expected to bring, attractive opportunities now exist for those who currently work as systems consultants / trainers to become ‘PISO® Business Associates’ or ‘PISO® Training Associates’. For a ‘route map’ to PISO® certification and licensing, details of courses or any other information about PISO®, please feel free to contact any member of the team - see below. Tel 0191 5152666, or email: David Deeks, PISO® Project Director: [email protected] Graeme Young, PISO® Business Development Manager: [email protected] Mark Donnelly, PISO® Business Development Executive (public sector): [email protected] Helen Lee, PISO® Business Development Executive (private sector): [email protected] Web sites: www.cet.sunderland.ac.uk/webedit/CET/reachout/piso.htm www.piso.org.uk Note: ‘Process Improvement for Strategic Objectives’, ‘PISO®’, the PISO® trademark, the PISO® framework and ‘workplace creativity driven by strategy’ are owned by The University of Sunderland.

APPENDIX Quotes from reports written by PISO users Those who made the following comments* - and many others like them - were experts in their own line of work and well aware of shortcomings in the way that their organisations operated. These shortcomings were not overcome through large-scale projects undertaken by professional business systems consultants, but by individuals - mostly without prior business or computer systems analysis experience. *(Note -originals available for inspection, on request)

Graeme Lupton - employed by IBM, Rank Xerox and consultant to North East Powder Coatings: In seventeen years of I.T. business services, I have never seen nor used a method, paradigm nor business solution as effective, conclusive and sorry, simple, as the PISO method. Brenda Peppin, North Durham Health Care NHS Trust: The PISO result is a model that has the potential to realise improvements identified in the strategic aims of the organisation and is in line with a move towards better access to information by clinicians. The approach also has the important benefits of helping staff throughout the organisation to gain a better understanding of their role within it and where it is headin Anthony Steele - Tyne & Wear Metropolitan Fire Brigade: The PISO approach has encouraged all involved to tackle the problem of recording and designing training within our organisation, confidently. Sean Stephenson - Freeman Hospital: I think the most important aspect of PISO is its flexibility. The approach can be applied to any process, not only administrative. The technique provides multiple solutions that can then be discussed with stakeholders to decide which is most acceptable. Martin McTavy - ViaSystems: The main objectives of the redesign were easily met. My own personal gain has been the ability to take apart a process system and then streamline and reconstruct it into a more user friendly and efficient system. Carl Latimer - Tyne & Wear Fire Brigade: PISO has taught me how to look logically at a problem. It makes areas of 'wasted time' leap out and demand attention. I have learned to look at many areas of my 'business'. To be quite honest, there is room for improvement in nearly all of it. Prior to this analysis I thought everything ran well! Bill Maher - City Hospitals Sunderland NHS Trust: PISO ensures commitment to change because key stakeholders have been involved in the process and can 'sign up' to the proposed changes. Problems are often complex and PISO, utilising SSADM techniques, enables clear communication of the current process and modelling of the proposed solution. Management of stakeholder expectations and relationships is key to any change management and PISO recognises this where other methodologies do not. Philippa Ellis - Benefits Agency: Should I be in the position to be involved in any further restructuring at work, I would certainly recommend that we follow the PISO method as it is more detailed and leaves less to chance than our method. My manager and I have again looked at the process although it had already been altered, and agree that these methods are much more effective. Boundaries of the process are more specific and the PISO steps follow a natural progression towards achieving strategic objectives. I cannot see anything lacking in the PISO method. I have learned that dfds are invaluable in identifying a process and am amazed at how easy they are to set up and use. Thankyou! Continued …

Quotes from reports written by PISO users (continued)

Andrea Irving - Teachers Assurance: PISO has proven that no matter how effective a system might be, it could be made more effective. From my experience in using PISO it has highlighted that for any organisation to improve it must always look at the systems that run within it. PISO is a must for any organisation that strives to succeed in this competitive world. Leslie Perry - Gateshead Health NHS Trust: PISO adds one important factor to the systems analysis approach - the injection of the 'strategic objective'. This converts what is a useful tool into a powerful force for change that finds a natural home in systems engineering. Malcolm Etchells - CCS Mobile Phone World: PISO has opened our minds to possible new means of solving problems. With regard to any areas of PISO being lacking or superfluous, the answer is a resounding NO. PISO has opened my eyes, and those of my colleagues at CCS, as to where systems analysis can take business. Nigel Dodds - City of Durham Council: PISO was well suited to this task. I strongly believe that PISO can be regarded as a layman's tool. Simply taking things to pieces and graphically showing how they work provides a great understanding - only by seeing the problem can we hope to fix it correctly. This has been a great lesson for me, not only in Business Systems Analysis but also in self developmen Julie Iley - Corning: PISO proved to be effective in persuading original thoughts to be changed. Once conflict had been resolved and the new process was outlined, the new dfd showed management that this process was the most beneficial. PISO also detailed all stakeholders concerned, and therefore communication could be carried out effectively. Tom Johnson - Caterpillar Stockton: There is no doubt that the application of PISO has simplified the process. When you look at a system it is quite easy to become so embroiled in it that you do not question its strategic objective, but instead merely how to ensure that the elements within it work effectively. The planning of finance departments is an excellent example. Simply because they were in the current system they remained after logicalisation. Only when the strategic element was introduced was their presence questioned. Maria Fairley - Sunderland City Council: Although I was not able to use PISO to reduce the system's complexities, I did find it useful to enable me to see the project appraisal system in its entirety. It may take a while for all to reap the benefits, however initial findings have proved that all new projects that have followed the system have had their project appraised and approved within a matter of a few weeks. It is a more structured, step-by-step process, more userfriendly, whilst still encompassing all bureaucratic criteria set out by Government Office for the North East. Joanne Anderson - Child Benefit Centre, Washington: The PISO method has been used in conjunction with the actual reorganisation of alpha operations areas within the Child Benefit Centre. The current structure in general is fairly logical but efficiencies will be made and employees will be better resourced. Once the change has been made the strategic objectives will have been met, and the PISO method will have been seen to be effective.