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 Re-
engineering (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 request
GP appointm ent date
Maintain GP GP appointm ent date D1 GP Appointment Diary
Appointments
*
2 GP
R eferral request
Referral letter details
Authorise referral to D2 GP Patient Database
Referral consent hospital
Referral letter
*
3 Out-patient recep Referral letter details
Patient Admin System
D3
Process referral
Receipt-dated referral letter
letter receipt
Appointm ent-dated * M1 Referral Letters folder
referral letter Receipt-dated referral letter
4 Consultant surgeon Appointm ent-dated referral letter
Allocate A vailable dates
appointment date
** Selected date

5 Out-patient recep R eferral & appointm ent details D4 Out-patient Module

A ppointm ent letter
Book appointment

A ppointm ent-dated referral letter

* One-week-out ‘pulling list’

A ppointm ent-dated
6 Medical records referral letter M2 Patient Records
a
Prepare case notes for Patient case notes
clinic
Patient * Patient case notes M3 Clinic Case Notes
7 Out-patient recep Patient case notes Appointm en t details
Appointm ent letter Administer W aiting list outcom e details
appointment
* 8 Clinic nurse
Waiting list outcom e form Patient case notes

Procedure request Conduct clinic Patient case notes

9 Consultant surgeon
Procedure consent
* with consen t form

Conduct Patient case notes

consultation
* Patient case notes with consent form
M3 Clinic Case Notes
‘Out-patient decision letter’ details Patient case notes with consent form
Patient case notes with consent form
10 Medical secretary M2 Patient Records
‘Out-patient decision’ letter
Process ‘Out-patien t Out patient decision details
decision’ letter 11 GP Receptionist
W aiting list card
* Record referral
D2 GP Patient Database
details
12 Waiting list officer *
Waiting list card details
M4 Waiting List Diary
Maintain waiting list
W aiting list card
*
Waiting list card M5 Waiting List Box
‘Confirm waiting list’ letter 13 Nurse co -ordinator
Confirm ‘to-come-in’ ‘To-come-in’ date
‘To-come-in’ date
date and details M6 Theatre Diary
* Theatre date

14 Service co-o rd
‘To-come-in’ letter ‘To-come-in’ date
Process ‘to-come-in’
letter
*
 Fig 2 : Pinderfield and Pontefract example AFTER PISO

1 GP Receptionist
Appointment request
Process GP
Confirmed appointment appointment

Vasectomy request
a
Vasectomy approval

Patient Information leaflets

Consent forms

2 GP
Available theatre slots
Conduct
Booked theatre slot 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: graeme.young@sunderland.ac.uk
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
 0.1 identify general
stage 0 .
'problem area'
identification of .

problem area .
0.2
define problem
area boundaries

1.1 identify / refine

strategic objective(s)
gather information 2.1
about current system
1.2 conduct stakeholder
analysis

stage 1 . stage 2
identification of . 1.3 discover how prepare physical dfd 2.2 analysis of
objectives . stakeholder groups of current system current
define strat objective(s) system

1.4 establish operational

objectives
logicalise dfd for 2.3
system efficiency
1.5 define
dfd objectives

3.1 logicalise dfd for

strategic objective(s)
stage 3
design of
3.2 analyse and resolve re-engineered
conflicts between system
strategic objectives

3.3
prepare physical dfd of
recommended 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 re-
engineered 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 request
GP appointm ent date
Maintain GP GP appointm ent date D1 GP Appointment Diary
Appointments
*
2 GP
Referral request
Referral letter details
Authorise referral to D2 GP Patient Database
Referral consent hospital
Referral letter
*
3 Out-patient recep Referral letter details
D3 Patient Admin System
Process referral
Receipt-dated referral letter
letter receipt
Appointment-dated * M1 Referral Letters folder
referral letter Receipt-dated referral letter
4 Consultant surgeon Appointment-dated referral letter
Allocate Available dates
appointment date
** Selected date

5 Out-p atient recep Referral & appointment details D4 Out-patient Module

Appointment letter
Book appointment

Appointment-dated referral letter

* One-week-out ‘pulling list’
Appointment-dated
6 Medical records referral letter M2 Patient Records
a
Prepare case notes for Patient case notes
clinic
Patient * Patient case notes M3 Clinic Case Notes
7 Out-patient recep Patient case notes Appointment details
Appointment letter Administer Waiting list outcome details
appointment
* 8 Clinic nurse
Waiting list outcome form Patient case notes

Procedure request Conduct clinic Patient case notes

9 Consultant surgeon
Procedure consent
* with consent form

Conduct Patient case notes

consultation
* Patient case notes with consent form
M3 Clinic Case Notes
‘Out-patient decision letter’ details Patient case notes with consent form
Patient case notes with consent form
10 Medical secretary M2 Patient Records
‘Out-patient decision’ letter
Process ‘Out-patient Out patient decision details
decision’ letter 11 GP Receptionist
W aiting list card
* Record referral D2 GP Patient Database
details
12 Waiting list officer *
Waiting list card details
Maintain waiting list M4 Waiting List Diary
W aiting list card
* M5 Waiting List Box
Waiting list card
‘Confirm waiting list’ letter 13 Nurse co -ordinator
Confirm ‘to-come-in’ ‘To-come-in’ date
‘To-come-in’ date
date and details M6 Theatre Diary
* Theatre date

14 Service co-ord
‘To-come-in’ letter ‘To-come-in’ date
Process ‘to-come-in’
letter
*
 Figure 2 Pontefract system AFTER PISO

1 GP Recep tionist
A pp oin tm ent requ est
P rocess GP
C on firm ed app oin tmen t appointm ent
*

Vasectom y req uest

a
Vasectom y app ro val

P atient In fo rm atio n leaflets

C on sen t fo rms

2 GP
A vailab le theatre slo ts

Conduct v ase ctom y

B oo ked th eatr e slo t 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.
 stage 0 . 0.1 identify general
'problem area'
identification of .
problem area .
0.2
PISO TM
TTM
M

define problem
area boundaries

1.1 identify / refine

strategic objective(s)
gather information 2.1
about current system
1.2 conduct stakeholder
analysis
stage 1 . stage 2
identification of . 1.3 discover how 2.2 analysis of
prepare physical dfd
objectives . stakeholder groups current
of current system
define strat objective(s) system

1.4 establish operational

objectives
logicalise dfd for 2.3
system efficiency
1.5 define
dfd objectives

3.1 logicalise dfd for

strategic objective(s)
stage 3
design of
3.2 analyse and resolve re-engineered
conflicts between system
strategic objectives

3.3 prepare physical dfd of

recommended system

Figure 3 - The PISO® framework

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 re-
engineer 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: david.deeks@sunderland.ac.uk
Graeme Young, PISO® Business Development Manager: graeme.young@sunderland.ac.uk
Mark Donnelly, PISO® Business Development Executive (public sector):
mark.donnelly@sunderland.ac.uk
Helen Lee, PISO® Business Development Executive (private sector): helen.lee@sunderland.ac.uk

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 user-
friendly, 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.