METHOD, SYSTEM, AND COMPUTER SOFTWARE PROGRAM PRODUCT FOR ANALYZING THE EFFICIENCY OF A COMPLEX PROCESS

• US 20060095311A1
• Filed: 12/16/2005
• Published: 05/04/2006
• Est. Priority Date: 08/28/2000
• Status: Active Grant

• Current Assignee: Daniel J. Thompson
• Original Assignee: Daniel J. Thompson
• Inventors: Thompson, Daniel J.
• Granted Patent: US 7,080,024 B2
• Time in Patent Office: Days
• US Class Current: 705/7.16
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 10/06 Resources, workflows, human or project management; Enterprise or organisation planning; Enterprise or organisation modelling
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 10/063116 Schedule adjustment for a person or group
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 10/063118 Staff planning in a project environment
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 10/06312 Adjustment or analysis of established resource schedule, e.g. resource or task levelling, or dynamic rescheduling
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 10/06313 Resource planning in a project environment
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 10/06314 Calendaring for a resource
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 10/06315 Needs-based resource requirements planning or analysis
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 10/0633 Workflow analysis
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 10/0637 Strategic management or analysis, e.g. setting a goal or target of an organisation; Planning actions based on goals; Analysis or evaluation of effectiveness of goals
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 10/06375 Prediction of business process outcome or impact based on a proposed change
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 10/0639 Performance analysis of employees; Performance analysis of enterprise or organisation operations
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 10/06395 Quality analysis or management
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 10/06398 Performance of employee with respect to a job function
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 10/1093 Calendar-based scheduling for persons or groups
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 10/1097 Task assignment

Abstract

A method of analyzing a workload schedule compared to available resources is provided. Projects comprising a process with at least one task are identified. A work time for each task is determined, including a greatest hands-on work time task. An effort equivalence (EE) for each task is determined by normalizing each task work time to the greatest hands-on work time. The projects are arranged so each task is at least partially performed in one interval. An apportionment of EE'"'"'s is determined, as well as a total EE (TEE) for each interval. Each TEE is compared to a historical maximum EE volume (HMEEV) to evaluate the workload schedule compared to the available resources. Where a TEE exceeds the HMEEV, the projects are modified to reapportion the TEE'"'"'s for a more efficient utilization of available resources compared to the workload schedule. A related method, system, and computer program product are also provided.

Claims

1. A method of analyzing and optimizing productivity within a complex process with respect to a workload schedule being performed by a total production full-time equivalent (FTE) worker headcount, said method comprising:

identifying a plurality of projects comprising the complex process, each project having a start date and a cycle time and further comprising at least one task;

determining a hands-on work time required for each task, the tasks including a task requiring a greatest hands-on work time;

determining an effort equivalence for each task by normalizing each task hands-on work time with respect to the task hands-on work time of the task requiring the greatest hands-on work time;

defining a calendar having intervals;

arranging the projects according to the start date and the cycle time and with respect to the calendar such that each task is at least partially performed in one of the intervals;

determining an effort equivalence apportionment for the intervals corresponding to the tasks at least partially performed in respective intervals;

determining a total effort equivalence for each interval corresponding to the sum of the effort equivalence apportionment for the tasks at least partially performed in that interval;

determining a productivity measure for a productivity measurement period by dividing the total effort equivalence by the total production FTE worker headcount and the productivity measurement period, the productivity measurement period comprising at least a portion of an interval;

comparing the productivity measure to a productivity capacity limit over the productivity measurement period, the productivity capacity limit comprising at least a percentage of a historical maximum productivity capacity with respect to the resources available therefor, so as to evaluate the workload schedule with respect to an empirical personnel capacity for the tasks comprising the projects; and

modifying the projects, where the productivity measure exceeds the productivity capacity limit for the productivity measurement period, such that the productivity measure over the productivity measurement period is no greater than the productivity capacity limit so as to thereby provide a relatively more efficient utilization of the empirical personnel capacity for the tasks comprising the projects with respect to the workload schedule.

2. A method according to claim 1 wherein comparing the productivity measure further comprises comparing the productivity measure to a productivity capacity limit, the productivity capacity limit comprising about 80 percent of the historical maximum productivity capacity, over the productivity measurement period.

3. A method according to claim 1 further comprising determining the empirical personnel capacity for the tasks comprising the projects with respect to the workload schedule by evaluating at least one of personnel working hours, personnel morale, and project result timeliness with respect to the historical maximum productivity capacity.

4. A method according to claim 1 wherein modifying the projects further comprises modifying the arrangement of the projects with respect to the calendar so as to reapportion the total effort equivalences across the intervals.

5. A method according to claim 1 wherein modifying the projects further comprises modifying the available resources such that the modified available resources correspond to the total equivalence effort for each interval regardless of the productivity capacity limit.

6. A method according to claim 1 wherein modifying the projects further comprises modifying the total production FTE worker headcount so as to modify the productivity measure with respect to the productivity capacity limit.

7. A method according to claim 1 wherein the tasks are each performed according to a corresponding process and modifying the projects further comprises modifying the processes so as to modify the productivity measure with respect to the productivity capacity limit.

8. A method according to claim 1 wherein defining a calendar further comprises defining a calendar extending for a period corresponding to the workload schedule.

9. A method according to claim 1 wherein determining a hands-on work time required for each task further comprises determining a hands-on work time required for each task such that an automated task is designated as requiring no hands-on work time.

10. A method according to claim 1 wherein determining a hands-on work time required for each task further comprises determining a hands-on work time required for each task by performing a single representative time measurement of the hands-on work required for each task.

11. A method according to claim 1 wherein determining an effort equivalence for each task further comprises normalizing each task hands-on work time with respect to the task hands-on work time of the task requiring the greatest hands-on work time to provide a corresponding unit-less measure of effort that relatively balances variations in effort for each task so as to substantially eliminate a need to continually monitor the hands-on work time required for each task.

12. A method according to claim 1 further comprising determining the historical maximum productivity capacity by dividing the total effort equivalence over a corresponding productivity measurement period in a previous calendar by the total production FTE worker headcount performing the tasks over the corresponding interval in the previous calendar, the total effort equivalence over the corresponding productivity measurement period further comprising an actual accrued total effort equivalence.

13. A method according to claim 1 further comprising, where the productivity measure does not exceed the productivity capacity limit for the productivity measurement period, maintaining the arrangement of the projects according to the start date and the cycle time and with respect to the calendar.

14. A computer system for analyzing productivity within a complex process with respect to a workload schedule being performed by a total production full-time equivalent (FTE) worker headcount, said computer system comprising:

a first processing device configured to identify a plurality of projects comprising the complex process, each project having a start date and a cycle time and further comprising at least one task;

a second processing device configured to determine a hands-on work time required for each task, the tasks including a task requiring a greatest hands-on work time;

a third processing device configured to determine an effort equivalence for each task by normalizing each task hands-on work time with respect to the task hands-on work time of the task requiring the greatest hands-on work time;

a fourth processing device configured to define a calendar having intervals;

a fifth processing device configured to arrange the projects according to the start date and the cycle time and with respect to the calendar such that each task is at least partially performed in one of the intervals;

a sixth processing device configured to determine an effort equivalence apportionment for the intervals corresponding to the tasks at least partially performed in respective intervals;

a seventh processing device configured to determine a total effort equivalence for each interval corresponding to the sum of the effort equivalence apportionment for the tasks at least partially performed in that interval;

an eighth processing device configured to determine a productivity measure for a productivity measurement period by dividing the total effort equivalence by the total production FTE worker headcount and the productivity measurement period, the productivity measurement period comprising at least a portion of an interval;

a ninth processing device configured to compare the productivity measure to a productivity capacity limit over the productivity measurement period, the productivity capacity limit comprising at least a percentage of a historical maximum productivity capacity with respect to the resources available therefor, so as to evaluate the workload schedule with respect to an empirical personnel capacity for the tasks comprising the projects; and

a tenth processing device configured to direct the modification of the projects, where the productivity measure exceeds the productivity capacity limit for the productivity measurement period, such that the productivity measure over the productivity measurement period is no greater than the productivity capacity limit so as to thereby provide a relatively more efficient utilization of the empirical personnel capacity for the tasks comprising the projects with respect to the workload schedule.

15. A computer system according to claim 14 wherein the ninth processing device is further configured to compare the productivity measure to a productivity capacity limit, the productivity capacity limit comprising about 80 percent of a historical maximum productivity capacity, over the productivity measurement period.

16. A computer system according to claim 14 further comprising an eleventh processing device configured to determine the empirical personnel capacity for the tasks comprising the projects with respect to the workload schedule by evaluating at least one of personnel working hours, personnel morale, and project result timeliness with respect to the historical maximum productivity capacity.

17. A computer system according to claim 14 wherein the tenth processing device is further configured to direct the modification of the arrangement of the projects with respect to the calendar so as to reapportion the total effort equivalences across the intervals.

18. A computer system according to claim 14 wherein the tenth processing device is further configured to direct the modification of the available resources such that the modified available resources correspond to the total equivalence effort for each interval regardless of the productivity capacity limit.

19. A computer system according to claim 14 wherein the tenth processing. device is further configured to direct the modification of the total production FTE worker headcount so as to modify the productivity measure with respect to the productivity capacity limit.

20. A computer system according to claim 14 wherein the tasks are each performed according to a corresponding process and the tenth processing device is further configured to direct the modification of the processes so as to modify the productivity measure with respect to the productivity capacity limit.

21. A computer system according to claim 14 wherein the fourth processing device is further configured to define a calendar extending for a period corresponding to the workload schedule.

22. A computer system according to claim 14 wherein the second processing device is further configured to determine a hands-on work time required for each task such that an automated task is designated as requiring no hands-on work time.

23. A computer system according to claim 14 wherein the second processing device is further configured to determine a hands-on work time required for each task by directing a performance of a single representative time measurement of the hands-on work required for each task.

24. A computer system according to claim 14 wherein the third processing device is further configured to normalize each task hands-on work time with respect to the task hands-on work time of the task requiring the greatest hands-on work time to provide a corresponding unit-less measure of effort that relatively balances variations in effort for each task so as to substantially eliminate a need to continually monitor the hands-on work time required for each task.

25. A computer system according to claim 14 further comprising a twelfth processing device configured to determine the historical maximum productivity capacity by dividing the total effort equivalence over a corresponding productivity measurement period in a previous calendar by the total production FTE worker headcount performing the tasks over the corresponding interval in the previous calendar, the total effort equivalence over the corresponding productivity measurement period further comprising an actual accrued total effort equivalence.

26. A computer system according to claim 14 wherein the tenth processing device is further configured, where the productivity measure does not exceed the productivity capacity limit for the productivity measurement period, to maintain the arrangement of the projects according to the start date and the cycle time and with respect to the calendar.

27. A computer-readable medium encoded with a computer program capable of being executed within a computer device for analyzing productivity within a complex process with respect to a workload schedule being performed by a total production full-time equivalent (FTE) worker headcount, said computer-readable medium encoded with a computer program comprising:

a first executable portion capable of identifying a plurality of projects comprising the complex process, each project having a start date and a cycle time and further comprising at least one task;

a second executable portion capable of determining a hands-on work time required for each task, the tasks including a task requiring a greatest hands-on work time;

a third executable portion capable of determining an effort equivalence for each task by normalizing each task hands-on work time with respect to the task hands-on work time of the task requiring the greatest hands-on work time;

a fourth executable portion capable of defining a calendar having intervals;

a fifth executable portion capable of arranging the projects according to the start date and the cycle time and with respect to the calendar such that each task is at least partially performed in one of the intervals;

a sixth executable portion capable of determining an effort equivalence apportionment for the intervals corresponding to the tasks at least partially performed in respective intervals;

a seventh executable portion capable of determining a total effort equivalence for each interval corresponding to the sum of the effort equivalence apportionment for the tasks at least partially performed in that interval;

an eighth executable portion capable of determining a productivity measure for a productivity measurement period by dividing the total effort equivalence by the total production FTE worker headcount and the productivity measurement period, the productivity measurement period comprising at least a portion of an interval;

a ninth executable portion capable of comparing the productivity measure to a productivity capacity limit over the productivity measurement period, the productivity capacity limit comprising at least a percentage of a historical maximum productivity capacity with respect to the resources available therefor, so as to evaluate the workload schedule with respect to an empirical personnel capacity for the tasks comprising the projects; and

a tenth executable portion capable of directing the modification of the projects, where the productivity measure exceeds the productivity capacity limit for the productivity measurement period, such that the productivity measure over the productivity measurement period is no greater than the productivity capacity limit so as to thereby provide a relatively more efficient utilization of the empirical personnel capacity for the tasks comprising the projects with respect to the workload schedule.

28. A computer-readable medium encoded with a computer program according to claim 27 wherein the ninth executable portion is further capable of comparing the productivity measure to a productivity capacity limit, the productivity capacity limit comprising about 80 percent of a historical maximum productivity capacity, over the productivity measurement period.

29. A computer-readable medium encoded with a computer program according to claim 27 further comprising an eleventh executable portion capable of determining the empirical personnel capacity for the tasks comprising the projects with respect to the workload schedule by evaluating at least one of personnel working hours, personnel morale, and project result timeliness with respect to the historical maximum productivity capacity.

30. A computer-readable medium encoded with a computer program according to claim 27 wherein the tenth executable portion is further capable of directing the modification of the arrangement of the projects with respect to the calendar so as to reapportion the total effort equivalences across the intervals.

31. A computer-readable medium encoded with a computer program according to claim 27 wherein the tenth executable portion is further capable of directing the modification of the available resources such that the modified available resources correspond to the total equivalence effort for each interval regardless of the productivity capacity limit.

32. A computer-readable medium encoded with a computer program according to claim 27 wherein the tenth executable portion is further capable of directing the modification of the total production FTE worker headcount so as to modify the productivity measure with respect to the productivity capacity limit.

33. A computer-readable medium encoded with a computer program according to claim 27 wherein the tasks are each performed according to a corresponding process and the tenth executable portion is further capable of directing the modification of the processes so as to modify the productivity measure with respect to the productivity capacity limit.

34. A computer-readable medium encoded with a computer program according to claim 27 wherein the fourth executable portion is further capable of defining a calendar extending for a period corresponding to the workload schedule.

35. A computer-readable medium encoded with a computer program according to claim 27 wherein the second executable portion is further capable of determining a hands-on work time required for each task such that an automated task is designated as requiring no hands-on work time.

36. A computer-readable medium encoded with a computer program according to claim 27 wherein the second executable portion is further capable of determining a hands-on work time required for each task by directing a performance of a single representative time measurement of the hands-on work required for each task.

37. A computer-readable medium encoded with a computer program according to claim 27 wherein the third executable portion is further capable of normalizing each task hands-on work time with respect to the task hands-on work time of the task requiring the greatest hands-on work time to provide a corresponding unit-less measure of effort that relatively balances variations in effort for each task so as to substantially eliminate a need to continually monitor the hands-on work time required for each task.

38. A computer-readable medium encoded with a computer program according to claim 27 further comprising a twelfth executable portion capable of determining the historical maximum productivity capacity by dividing the total effort equivalence over a corresponding productivity measurement period in a previous calendar by the total production FTE worker headcount performing the tasks over the corresponding interval in the previous calendar, the total effort equivalence over the corresponding productivity measurement period further comprising an actual accrued total effort equivalence.

39. A computer-readable medium encoded with a computer program according to claim 27 wherein the tenth executable portion is further capable of, where the productivity measure does not exceed the productivity capacity limit for the productivity measurement period, maintaining the arrangement of the projects according to the start date and the cycle time and with respect to the calendar.