Systems and Methods for Optimizing Enterprise Performance Relationships to Other Applications

• US 20110035253A1
• Filed: 08/05/2010
• Published: 02/10/2011
• Est. Priority Date: 08/07/2009
• Status: Abandoned Application

• Current Assignee: onFocus Healthcare, Inc. (MedeAnalytics, Inc.)
• Original Assignee: onFocus Healthcare, Inc. (MedeAnalytics, Inc.)
• Inventors: Mason, Steven J., Galbraith, Ronald E.
• Application Number:
  US12/850,880
• Publication Number:
  US 20110035253A1
• Time in Patent Office: Days
• US Class Current: 705/9
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 10/06 Resources, workflows, human or project management; Enterprise or organisation planning; Enterprise or organisation modelling
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 10/06311 Scheduling, planning or task assignment for a person or group
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 10/06315 Needs-based resource requirements planning or analysis

Abstract

Methods and systems enable enterprises to optimize the performance of an organization or enterprise by linking the goals and the performance of the organization or enterprise. Goals may be set for improving performance. Those goals may then be evaluated using parameters such as critical success factors, key performance indicators, and action plan steps.

Claims

1. An enterprise optimization system comprising:

a computing device, wherein the computing device is connected to a central server;

the central server, wherein the central server comprises a processor and wherein the processor is configured with software executable instructions to cause the central server to perform operations comprising;

receiving from the computing device a goal;

receiving from the computing device a critical success factor relating to the goal, wherein the critical success factor comprises a task the completion of which is required to achieve a particular goal;

receiving from the computing device an action step and a timeline for completing the action step, wherein the action step comprises a task the completion of which is required to achieve the critical success factor;

receiving from the computing device information relating to the completion of the action step; and

determining a first measure of attainment of the critical success factor and a second measurement of attainment of the goal from the action step completion information.

2. The system of claim 1, wherein the enterprise is selected from the group consisting of a healthcare enterprise, a manufacturing enterprise, a service enterprise, a non-profit organization, a not-for-profit organization, and a governmental agency.

3. The system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured with software executable instructions to cause the central server to perform operations comprising:

establishing a priority for the critical success factor;

establishing a weighting factor for the critical success factor, and

adjusting the measure of attainment of the goal using the weighting factor.

4. The system of claim 3, wherein the operation for establishing a weighting factor for the critical success factor comprises:

prompting a user of the computing device for first information indicative of a relationship between the goal and another goal; and

prompting the user of the computing device for second information indicative of a relationship between the critical success factor and another critical success factor; and

establishing the weighting factor using the first and second information.

5. The system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured with software executable instructions to cause the central server to perform operations comprising:

identifying a key performance indicator, wherein the key performance indicator measures the achievement of the critical success factor;

establishing an acceptable range for the key performance indicator;

determining whether the key performance indicator is within the acceptable range; and

issuing an alert if the key performance indicator is outside the acceptable range.

6. The system of claim 5, wherein the goal comprises an achievement date and wherein the acceptable range is reduced as the achievement date is approached.

7. The system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured with software executable instructions to cause the central server to perform operations comprising;

establishing an acceptable range for the measure of attainment;

determining whether the measure of attainment is within the acceptable range; and

establishing an additional action step from the action step information and the performance state information when the measure of attainment is outside the acceptable range.

8. The system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured with software executable instructions to cause the central server to perform operations comprising:

receiving information identifying an individual responsible for attainment of the goal; and

associating the goal with the responsible individual.

9. A method for optimizing the optimizing the operation of an enterprise comprising:

a processor receiving a goal from a computing device;

the processor receiving from the computing device a critical success factor relating to the goal, wherein the critical success factor comprises a task the completion of which is required to achieve a particular goal;

the processor receiving from the computing device an action step and a timeline for completing the action step, wherein the action step comprises a task the completion of which is required to achieve the critical success factor;

processor receiving from the computing device information relating to the completion of the action step; and

processor determining a first measure of attainment of the critical success factor and a second measurement of attainment of the goal from the action step completion information.

10. The method of claim 9, wherein the enterprise is selected from the group consisting of a healthcare enterprise, a manufacturing enterprise, a service enterprise, a non-profit organization, a not-for-profit organization, and a governmental agency.

11. The method of claim 9 further comprising:

the processor establishing a priority for the critical success factor;

the processor establishing a weighting factor for the critical success factor, and

the processor adjusting the measure of attainment of the goal using the weighting factor.

12. The method of claim 11, wherein the processor establishing a weighting factor for the critical success factor comprises:

the processor prompting a user of the computing device for first information indicative of a relationship between the goal and another goal;

the processor prompting the user of the computing device for second information indicative of a relationship between the critical success factor and another critical success factor; and

the processor establishing the weighting factor using the first and second information.

13. The method of claim 9 further comprising:

the processor identifying a key performance indicator, wherein the key performance indicator measures the achievement of the critical success factor;

the processor establishing an acceptable range for the key performance indicator;

the processor determining whether the key performance indicator is within the acceptable range; and

the processor issuing an alert if the key performance indicator is outside the acceptable range.

14. The method of claim 13, wherein the goal comprises an achievement date and wherein the acceptable range is reduced as the achievement date is approached.

15. The method of claim 9 further comprising;

the processor establishing an acceptable range for the measure of attainment;

the processor determining whether the measure of attainment is within the acceptable range; and

the processor establishing an additional action step from the action step information and the performance state information when the measure of attainment is outside the acceptable range.

16. The method of claim 9 further comprising:

the processor receiving information identifying an individual responsible for attainment of the goal; and

the processor associating the goal with the responsible individual.

17. An enterprise optimization system comprising:

a goals database;

a critical success factor database;

an action plan database;

a computing device, wherein the computing device is connected to a central server;

the central server, wherein the central server comprises a processor and wherein the processor is configured with software executable instructions to cause the central server to perform operations comprising;

receiving from the computing device an organizational category;

receiving from the goals database a goal related to the organization category;

receiving from the critical success factor database a critical success factor relating to the goal and to the organizational category, wherein the critical success factor comprises a task the completion of which is required to achieve a particular goal;

receiving from the action plan database an action step and a timeline for completing the action step, wherein the action step is related to the organizational category and associated with the critical success factor;

receiving from the computing device information relating to the completion of the action step; and

determining a measure of attainment of the goal from the action step information and the performance state information.

18. The system of claim 17, wherein the enterprise is selected from the group consisting of a healthcare enterprise, a manufacturing enterprise, a service enterprise, a non-profit organization, a not-for-profit organization, and a governmental agency.

19. The system of claim 17, wherein the processor is further configured with software executable instructions to cause the central server to perform operations comprising:

establishing a priority for the critical success factor;

establishing a weighting factor for the critical success factor, and

adjusting the measure of attainment of the goal using the weighting factor.

20. The system of claim 19, wherein the operation for establishing a weighting factor for the critical success factor comprises:

prompting a user of the computing device for first information indicative of a relationship between the goal and another goal;

prompting the user of the computing device for second information indicative of a relationship between the critical success factor and another critical success factor; and

establishing the weighting factor using the first and second information.

21. The system of claim 17, wherein system further comprises a key performance indicator database and the processor is further configured with software executable instructions to cause the central server to perform operations comprising:

receiving from the key performance indicator database a key performance indicator, wherein the key performance indicator is related to the organizational category and measures the completion of the critical success factor;

establishing an acceptable range for the key performance indicator;

determining whether the key performance indicator is within the acceptable range; and

issuing an alert if the key performance indicator is outside the acceptable range.

22. The system of claim 21, wherein the key performance indicator comprises an achievement date and wherein the acceptable range is reduced as the achievement date is approached.

23. The system of claim 17, wherein the processor is further configured with software executable instructions to cause the central server to perform operations comprising;

establishing an acceptable range for the measure of attainment;

determining whether the measure of attainment is within the acceptable range; and

establishing an additional action step from the action step information and the performance state information when the measure of attainment is outside the acceptable range.

24. The system of claim 17, wherein the goals database comprises qualifications information indicative of a set of skills required to manage the goal and wherein the processor is further configured with software executable instructions to cause the central server to perform operations comprising:

accessing a human relations database, wherein the human relations database comprises information relating to skills of individuals within the enterprise;

matching the skills of the individuals within the enterprise to the required skill set; and

assigning responsibility for the goal to an individual whose skills match the required skill set.

25. A method for optimizing an enterprise comprising:

a processor receiving from a computing device an organizational category;

the processor receiving from a goals database a goal related to the organization category;

the processor receiving from a critical success factor database a critical success factor relating to the goal and to the organizational category, wherein the critical success factor comprises a task the completion of which is required to achieve a particular goal;

the processor receiving from an action plan database an action step and a timeline for completing the action step, wherein the action step is related to the organizational category and associated with the critical success factor;

the processor receiving from the computing device information relating to the completion of the action step; and

determining a measure of attainment of the goal from the action step information and the performance state information.

26. The method of claim 25, wherein the enterprise is selected from the group consisting of a healthcare enterprise, a manufacturing enterprise, a service enterprise, a non-profit organization, a not-for-profit organization, and a governmental agency.

27. The method of claim 25 further comprising:

the processor the processor establishing a priority for the critical success factor;

establishing a weighting factor for the critical success factor, and

the processor adjusting the measure of attainment of the goal using the weighting factor.

28. The method of claim 27, wherein establishing a weighting factor for the critical success factor comprises:

the processor prompting a user of the computing device for first information indicative of a relationship between the goal and another goal;

the processor prompting the user of the computing device for second information indicative of a relationship between the critical success factor and another critical success factor; and

establishing the weighting factor using the first and second information.

29. The method of claim 25 further comprising:

the processor receiving from a key performance indicator database a key performance indicator, wherein the key performance indicator is related to the organizational category and measures the completion of the critical success factor;

the processor establishing an acceptable range for the key performance indicator;

the processor determining whether the key performance indicator is within the acceptable range; and

the processor issuing an alert if the key performance indicator is outside the acceptable range.

30. The method of claim 29, wherein the key performance indicator comprises an achievement date and wherein the acceptable range is reduced as the achievement date is approached.

31. The method of claim 25 further comprising;

the processor establishing an acceptable range for the measure of attainment;

the processor determining whether the measure of attainment is within the acceptable range; and

the processor information when the measure of attainment is outside the acceptable range.

32. The method of claim 25, wherein the goals database comprises qualifications information indicative of a set of skills required to manage the goal and wherein the method further comprises:

the processor accessing a human relations database, wherein the human relations database comprises information relating to skills of individuals within the enterprise;

the processor matching the skills of the individuals within the enterprise to the required skill set; and

the processor assigning responsibility for the goal to an individual whose skills match the required skill set.