Systems and Methods for Optimizing Enterprise Performance Relationships to Other Applications

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.