Chapter 2 · Strategic Information Systems
Revised lecture draft
Chapter 2 · Business Processes
A submitted application begins the permit process.
The defined outcome is a decision communicated to the applicant.
Documents forwarded are intermediate events.
Start: application submitted.
Finish: decision communicated.
Moving the start to “complete application received” removes earlier waiting from the measure.
Incomplete material returns to the applicant.
A correction returns to intake under the same case identifier.
A return path needs an owner as well as an arrow.
Automation can check required fields.
Process change can remove duplicate entry or an unnecessary handoff.
Ask which cause of delay the change addresses.
Cycle time measures elapsed time between defined events.
Working time excludes closed hours.
Calendar time includes them. State which you use.
The 240-minute review wait is a lead to investigate.
Possible causes include a queue, a batch rule, missing information, or unavailable staff.
Suppose intake can handle 40 cases per day and specialists 24.
If every case needs both, specialist capacity limits the process to at most 24 per day.
With 30 arrivals and 24 completions per day:
Unfinished work grows by six cases per day.
Increasing intake capacity to 50 does not increase specialist capacity.
Transfer a ready record, an identified next action, and responsibility.
Provide a return route for incomplete information.
“Sent” does not establish “accepted.”
Functional managers supervise specialized work.
A process owner coordinates the full outcome and resolves conflicts across handoffs.
Proposal: notify the next reviewer immediately after completeness is confirmed.
Mechanism: reduce avoidable waiting between ready work and acceptance.
Evidence: handoff timestamps and unresolved exceptions.
A. The review application needs faster hardware. B. Review is necessarily the capacity bottleneck. C. The wait needs investigation before choosing a remedy.
Under the stated serial-process assumptions, does the maximum completion rate rise?
A. Yes. B. No.
Use the Lakeview case. Map the completeness decision and correction loop. Define a usable handoff and appoint an overall process owner.
Define the outcome, follow the paths, and inspect waiting separately from capacity. A faster task helps when it addresses a cause of the service problem.
A caseworker needs the next action for P104.
A manager needs aged queues and available capacity.
A decision team needs alternatives and assumptions.
A transaction processing system records routine events:
Application received; payment recorded; recommendation entered; decision communicated.
A management information system can summarize received, completed, and open cases by stage or office.
Reports support monitoring and routine decisions.
Decision support examines options and assumptions.
Example: compare staffing schedules under different arrival volumes.
The result supports judgment.
An executive view may connect service reliability, resource commitments, and access.
A useful summary retains the definitions needed to interpret it.
An enterprise system can connect shared case records and process rules.
Integration requires agreement about both the data and the work.
A shared identifier connects the application, payment, correction, and decision.
Matching a name or an address alone can connect the wrong records.
The applicant corrects the portal address.
The reviewer still has the old attachment.
Both screens can look normal while the process diverges.
Finance owns payment confirmation.
Reviewers own recommendations.
Service staff confirm communication.
Permissions should support those responsibilities.
A record can arrive with an unknown identifier or missing required material.
Keep the exception visible, assign an owner, and request correction.
Partners need recognized identifiers, clear event meanings, and an agreed response to discrepancies.
Message delivery and completed work are separate achievements.
A. Force one shared status to replace all events. B. Define each event and its owner. C. Add more message notifications.
A. Record that P104 arrived. B. Display yesterday’s completed count. C. Compare staffing options under different arrival assumptions.
For Lakeview, define three status events, their owners, and the response to an address correction. Identify one agreement that software cannot decide for the city.
Connect the same case while preserving distinct business events. Integration works when usable information reaches someone with a defined responsibility.
Sharing a document distributes information.
Collaboration combines interdependent knowledge to produce an agreed result.
Intake wants fewer questions.
Reviewers want enough detail to avoid returns.
Use actual problem cases to examine the tradeoff.
Record the problem, approve a response, assign implementation, and define a review.
A discussion space needs a path into authorized action.
Preserve identifiable revisions.
State which version is authoritative and when it applies.
Several files called “final” do not resolve authority.
Issue on P104 → specialist clarification → policy-owner approval → published guidance → assigned form update.
Business staff explain work and exceptions.
IS specialists assess data, reliability, integration, and feasible changes.
Managers decide priorities and resources.
Understand and measure the process.
Investigate a cause and test a change.
Monitor the result and decide what to do next.
A clearer checklist can improve the current sequence.
Removing an unnecessary approval can redesign the sequence.
The larger change needs evidence about consequences.
Before: 240 + 360 + 480 + 600 + 720 = 2,400 minutes.
Pilot: 180 + 240 + 300 + 360 + 420 = 1,500 minutes.
With five completed cases each, means are 480 and 300.
Each window lasts five working days and completes five cases. Throughput is one decision per day in both.
Open cases: three before, four in the pilot.
Completed-case returns: 2/5 = 40% before; 1/5 = 20% in the pilot.
Small samples, missing case complexity, staffing, and unfinished-case ages limit the claim.
A. Throughput doubled. B. The completed-case mean elapsed time was lower in the pilot sample. C. Every applicant received a faster service.
A. Number of chat messages sent. B. Number of installed collaboration tools. C. Ages and delay reasons of cases still open.
Advise Lakeview on its next pilot step. State a mechanism, an owner, an outcome, a balancing measure, and a condition for revising the decision.
Collaboration should lead to recorded decisions and owned actions. Judge the resulting service with consistent measures and visible limits of evidence.