WO2008009050A1

WO2008009050A1 - A method and system for managing an action

Info

Publication number: WO2008009050A1
Application number: PCT/AU2007/000995
Authority: WO
Inventors: William Mervyn Wasley
Original assignee: Harmony Gold (Australia) Pty Ltd
Priority date: 2006-07-19
Filing date: 2007-07-19
Publication date: 2008-01-24
Also published as: AU2007276695A1

Abstract

A method (10) for managing an action comprising the steps of: assigning an action to a first position in an escalation tree (14), the first position having one or more occupants; comparing the status of the action against management criteria (20); and alerting an occupant associated with a second position in the escalation tree if the result of the comparison is a result in an alerting set of results (22, 28), the second position being equal to or higher than the first position in the escalation tree.

Description

"A METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR MANAGING AN ACTION"

FIELD OF THE INVENTION

The invention relates to a method and system for managing an action. The invention is particularly suited to managing an action within an organisation where parties within the organisation are alerted depending on an action status.

BACKGROUND TO THE INVENTION

The following discussion of the background to the invention is intended to facilitate an understanding of the present invention. However, it should be appreciated that the discussion is not an acknowledgment or admission that any of the material referred to was published, known or part of the common general knowledge in any jurisdiction as at the priority date of the application.

The failure of a party to perform an action, or timely perform an action, can result in significant adverse consequences. Where the action relates to corporate reporting requirements, such as those required by the United States Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 ("SOX"), the monitoring of such action may be crucial to the corporation involved.

It is therefore important that an action, such as those mentioned above, be monitored to ensure that the action is progressing in accordance with expectations and appropriate action be taken if progression is not in accordance with such expectations.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

Throughout this document, unless otherwise indicated to the contrary, the terms "comprising", "consisting of", and the like, are to be construed as non-exhaustive, or in other words, as meaning "including, but not limited to".

In accordance with a first aspect of the invention there is a method for managing an action comprising:

assigning an action to a first position in an escalation tree, the first position having one or more occupants;

comparing the status of the action against management criteria; AND

Substitute Sheet (Rule26) RO/AU alerting an occupant associated with a second position in the escalation tree if the result of the comparison is a result in an alerting set of results, the second position being equal to or higher than the first position in the escalation tree.

So as to ensure that the action may be properly progressed and not stalled due to monitoring being assigned to a vacant position, the method may perform the further steps of:

determining if a selected position is occupied; AND

deeming the selected position to be the second position if the selected position is occupied.

For a similar reason, the method may further include the steps of checking that a person occupying a position may not be temporarily absent before providing them with such alerts.

In situations where progress of the action is not proceeding at a satisfactory rate, the method may further include the step of re-assigning responsibility for the action to the second position. In this manner it is anticipated that the new person or people responsible for the action will be able to progress the action in a more efficient manner.

To allow for control of re-assignments, the re-assignment may be to a person or persons who occupy a third position in the escalation tree as determined by a person or persons who occupy the second position.

In situations where the escalation tree has a plurality of levels, and the progress of an action remains unsatisfactory, the method may be repeated in a manner that see responsibility for the action re-assigned to progressively higher positions in the escalation tree until the status of the action equals a predetermined action status.

A periodic time period may be set with the step of comparing the status of the action against management criteria to be repeatedly performed after elapsing of the periodic time period until such time as the status of the action indicates completion.

Alternatively, the method may operate such that a first time period is set with the step of comparing the status of the action against management criteria to be performed after elapsing of the first time period. Thereafter, further time periods may be set with the status of the action again being compared on expiry of each such further time period.

Substitute Sheet (Rule26) RO/AU This alternative configuration thus allows for comparisons to be made more regularly as a deadline for completing the action approaches, with escalation occurring to senior positions in the escalation chart if progress is unsatisfactory.

In yet a further alternative or cumulative arrangement, the step of comparing the status of the action against management criteria is repeatedly performed on the occupant of the first position updating progress on the action.

The method may further include the step of re-defining the management criteria once the status of an action satisfies the existing management criteria. In this manner a single action may relate to a project having a series of milestones where the re-defined management criteria represents the next milestone for the project.

The escalation tree may be pre-defined or may be defined as part of the method. In either case, the escalation tree may be defined with reference to an organisation chart. This allows the escalation process to follow the management or lines of command established within an organisation.

To ensure that actions are not assigned without the person to whom they are assigned having no knowledge of the action, the method may further include the step of alerting the one or more persons who occupy the first position that they have been assigned the action.

To allow the method to be used in meeting good corporate governance requirements, or the requirements of compliance regimes such as those introduced by the SOX act, the method may include the step of keeping an audit trail in respect of at least one of: the alerts generated in respect of the action; the positions the action has been escalated to; the status of the action. Ideally, the information recorded as part of the audit trail is not open to compromise and may be reported on as and when required.

In accordance with a second aspect of the invention there is a system for managing an action comprising:

a first set of persons

a manager; AND

Substitute Sheet (Rule26) RO/AU A- at least one communications device by which a person in a second set of persons may be alerted, the manager communicable with the communications device

where, the manager is operable to assign an action to the first set of persons and further operable to compare the status of the action against management criteria, the manager operable to issue an alert to at least one person in the second set of persons by way of the communications device if the result of the comparison is a result in an alerting set of results and where the position occupied by the first set of persons is subordinate or equal to the position occupied by the second set of persons in an escalation tree.

The manager may be further operable to determine if a selected position in the escalation tree is occupied and, if occupied, deem a set of persons who occupy the selected position as the second set of persons. Similarly, the manager may be further operable to determined if a selected position in the escalation tree is occupied and the occupant is not temporarily absent and, if occupied and the occupant is not temporarily absent, deem a set of persons who occupy the selected position as the second set of persons.

Responsibility for the action may be re-assigned by the manager to the second set of persons if the result of the comparison is a result in an escalating set of results, the escalating set of results being a sub-set of the alerting set of results. Alternatively, responsibility for the action may be re-assigned by the manager to a set of persons who occupy a third position in the escalation tree at the direction of a person or persons occupying the second position where the result of the comparison is a result in an escalating set of results, the escalating set of results being a sub-set of the alerting set of results.

The manager can repeatedly re-assign responsibility for the action to sets of persons occupying progressively higher positions in the escalation tree until the status of the action equals a predetermined action status.

Comparison of the status of the action against management criteria may be performed repeatedly after elapsing of a periodic time period until such time as the status of the action indicates completion. Alternatively, the manager may compare the status of the action against management criteria after elapsing of a first time period and, if the status

Substitute Sheet (Rule26) RO/ATJ of the action does not indicate completion, again comparing the status of the action against management criteria on the elapsing of subsequent time periods until such time as the status of the action indicates completion.

In yet a further alternative, or cumulative, approach, the manager may repeatedly compare the status of the action against management criteria whenever a person in the first set of persons updates progress of the action with the manager.

The manager may operate to provide for re-definition of the management criteria once the status of an action satisfied existing management criteria.

In a further configuration of the system, the manager may include a definition module, the definition module operable to define an escalation tree. The definition module may operate to define the escalation tree with reference to an organisation chart.

The system may further include at least one action communications device by which a person in the first set of persons may be alerted, the manager communicable with the action communications devices, the manager operable to alert at least one person in the first set of persons by way of an action communications device on an action being assigned to them.

The manager may include an audit module, the audit module operable to keep an audit trail in respect of at least one of: the alerts generated in respect of the action; the positions in the escalation tree the action has been escalated to; the status of the action. A reporting module may also form part of the manager operable to report on information kept as part of the audit trail.

The system may be further configures such that the manager is operable to obtain information in respect of an action from other entities and use that information to determine the status of an action and whether the status of an action meets management criteria. In this manner, the system for managing an action may be quite unobtrusive to the persons concerned.

Further aspects of the invention relate to an apparatus fulfilling the role of manager and a computer program product operable to perform the method or implement the system described in the first and second aspects of the invention, respectively.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

Substitute Sheet (Rule26) RO/Aϋ The invention will now be described, by way of example only, with reference to the accompanying drawings, in which:

Figure 1 is a flowchart of a first embodiment of the present invention.

Figure 2 is a first flowchart of a second embodiment of the present invention; AND

Figure 3 is a second flowchart of the second embodiment of the present invention as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 4 is a representative escalation chart used to illustrate the second embodiment of the present invention.

PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS OF THE INVENTION

Specific embodiments of the present invention are now described in detail. The terminology used herein is for the purpose of describing particular embodiments only, and is not intended to limit the scope of the present invention.

Additionally, in the context of the following embodiments, an action is commonly a task that must be completed by (the person filling) a specific position, by a specific date (essentially "the predefined management criteria")

In accordance with a first embodiment of the present invention there is a method of managing an action 10. The method 10 commences with the defining of an escalation tree 12.

The escalation tree comprises a plurality of nodes. Each node represents a position that one or more persons (either human or body corporate) may fill. Each nodes is connected by at least one branch to at least one other node. The branches act as pathway indicators for escalating an action, which will be explained in more detail below.

In this embodiment, the escalation tree includes a first node and a second node connected by a single branch.

Once an escalation tree has been defined, an action may be assigned to a person holding a position represented by the first node (step 14). In this embodiment, the person concerned is then made aware that the action has been assigned to them (step 16). The person is then left to perform the action as they see fit.

Substitute Sheet (Rule26) RO/AU A predetermined time period is then allowed to pass before the status of the action assigned to the person holding the position represented by the first node is assessed (step 18). The assessed status of the action is then compared to predefined management criteria (step 20). The results of the comparison may indicate that:

• the action is complete or is progressing in a manner that no response is required to properly manage the action, in which case the method terminates;

• an alert is to be provided to a person holding the position represented by the second node (step 22); OR

• the action should be escalated to a person holding the position represented by the second node (step 24).

In the case of an alert being sent, the person to whom the alert has been sent may then follow-up the matter with the person to whom the action has been assigned so that further progress may be made in respect of that action (step 26). The method then repeats from step 18 to ensure that the person holding the second position is aware of the progress being made on the action, as and when required, until such time as the action is completed (which includes completion by abandonment).

Alternatively, in the case of the action being escalated to a person holding the position represented by the second node, the action is re-assigned to that person (step 24). At the same time, the person holding the position represented by the second node is alerted to the re-assignment of the task so that they may progress the action (step 28)., In this embodiment, as there is no other person to whom the completion of such action is to be notified, it remains assigned to the person holding the position represented by the second node until completion (which includes completion by abandonment).

In accordance with a second embodiment of the invention, there is a system for managing an action 100. The system 100 comprises a communications network 102 having a plurality of communication devices 104 connected thereto and a manager program 106.

The manager program 106 execute on a processor 108 of a communication device 104. The manager program 106 includes a hierarchy definition module 110 and an assessment module 112.

Substitute Sheet (Rule 26) RO/AU The system will now be described in the context of the following example of its intended use.

An operator defines an escalation tree using the hierarchy definition module 110 (step 200). The escalation tree comprises a plurality of nodes. Each node is connected by at least one branch to at least one other node. The nodes represent positions.

As each node is defined, the operator is able to associate one or more persons (either human or body corporate) with the position the node represents. If the operator does not associate a person with a node, the position represented by the node is allocated a vacant status (step 202).

In this example, the escalation tree is as shown in Figure 4. In this Figure, there are four nodes. The first node is representative of the corporation's bookkeepers and is associated with person A. The second node is representative of the corporation's taxation accountants and are associated with person B and person C. The third node is representative of the corporation's taxation manager and is assigned vacant status. The fourth node is representative of the corporation's chief financial officer and is associated with person D.

Branches extend from the first node to the second node; the second node to the third node; and from the third node to the fourth node.

Using the manager program 106, the operator assigns the action of completing a taxation report to person A (step 204). On confirming the assignment, the association of action and assignee is stored in a data store for later reference.

Also on confirmation of the assignment, the manager program 106 operates to send a communication message to a communication device 104 in the possession of, or accessible by, person A (step 206). In the present example, the communication device 104 is person A's company computer system which is capable of interfacing with the manager program 106 by way of an internet browser program executable thereon. The communication message takes the form of an on-screen message to person A on their accessing the manager program 106 by way of the internet browser.

As person A now has access to the manager program 106 they may record their progress in respect of the action with the assessment module 112 (step 208). This may be performed repeatedly by person A as and when desired.

Substitute Sheet (Rule26) RO/AU Each time that person A records progress in respect of the action, the assessment module 112 assesses whether the action is complete (step 210). If the action has been completed, then the assessment module 112 operates to delete this action from the data store (step 212). Monitoring of that action is then complete.

Alternatively, if the action has not been completed, the assessment module 112 checks to see whether it is time to assess the progress of the action compared to predefined management criteria (step 214). If not, processing returns to step 208 where person A may enter in further details in relation to the progress of the action before this comparison is performed.

However, if it is time for the progress of the action to date to be compared to predefined management criteria, this comparison is made at step 216. The results of the comparison may indicate that:

• the action is complete or is progressing in a manner that no response is required to properly manage the action, in which case processing moves to step 212;

• an alert is to be provided to a person holding the position represented by a higher node (step 218); OR

• the action should be escalated to a person holding the position represented by a higher node (step 220).

In this instance, the comparison indicates that person A is not meeting the predefined management criteria, but only just. As a result, the assessment module 112 selects person C as the person holding the position represented by the higher node who should be notified in accordance with step 218. Person C is then notified of the progressed status of the action the next time they access the manager program 106. Person C is then able to follow up on the progress of the action directly with person A.

Following notification, the assessment module 112 then sets a new time for which the progress of the action is to again be compared to the predefined management criteria.

In the context of this example, person A is, for an assortment of reasons, unable to further progress the action and therefore when the next step 216 comparison arises, the assessment module 112 selects person B as the person holding the position

Substitute Sheet (Rule26) RO/ATJ represented by the higher node to whom the action should now be escalated (step 220).

Escalation of the action in this manner sees the assessment module 112 modify the action as recorded in the data store to now be associated with person B instead of person A (step 224). Person B is then alerted that the action has now been escalated to them so that they may appropriately progress the action (step 226).

A new time for which the progress of the action is to again be compared to the predefined management criteria is then set and the process repeats.

For the purposes of this example, person B is able to progress the action further but is unable to meet the predefined management criteria. As a result, the assessment module 112 attempts to select a person holding the position represented by the third node as the person to whom the action should be escalated. However, the assessment module 112 checks first to determine whether anyone holds this position (ie. the position associated with the node is not designated vacant) at step 222. If no one holds the position, the assessment module 112 further traverses up the escalation tree until it identifies a node where the associated position is occupied by a person. In this case, this means that the assessment module 112 then traverses the branches to the fourth node, where person D is selected as the person to whom the action should be escalated.

With the action now to be assigned to person D instead of person B, the action as recorded in the data store is appropriately changed (step 224) and that the action has been escalated to them in accordance with step 226.. A new time for which the progress of the action is to again be compared to the predefined management criteria is also set. However, in this case as there is no further person to whom the action can be escalated in accordance with the escalation tree, if the comparison indicates that the action is not completed an alert is repeatedly sent to person D on the expiry of each time period until the comparison performed at step 216 indicates that the action has been completed.

In accordance with a third embodiment of the invention, where like numerals reference like parts, the system of the second embodiment of the invention is further modified.

The first of such modifications that that the predefined management criteria in respect of an action may vary over time. In this manner, rather than monitoring a project having

Substitute Sheet (Rule26)RO/AXJ a number of milestones in a manner where each milestone represents a separate action, the project can be monitored as a single action and the predefined management criteria can change to reflect the requirements of each milestone.

Furthermore, the time period set to elapse before a comparison is made between the progress of an action and the predefined management criteria may vary to accord with^" the milestone dates rather than being a repetitive fixed period of time.

The second such modification is to provide audit and reporting functions through the management program 112. The audit functions ensure that actions are not tampered with in an unauthorised manner (thereby assisting with compliance of legislation such as the SOX Act). The reporting functionality allows people in certain positions to keep track of actions recorded in the system that are not necessarily at a point where an alert or escalation is required.

The present invention as described above has a variety of uses which may not be readily apparent from the examples provided. For instance, the system may be used to:

• track the qualifications and training responsibilities of particular positions;

• monitor the working hours of people in particular positions, including overtime and leave entitlements;

• act as an instigator for risk assessment or job safety assessment activities.

It is expected that the person skilled in the art would understand that the invention is not limited to work with particular communication devices or communication networks. For instance the invention may be implemented by way of a computer network or as a single stand-alone machine. The computer network may take be implemented in any topological form such as client-server, ring or token and may be localised or extend over a range of countries. Furthermore, any such computer network may interface with the Internet or other wired, wireless or combination of wired and wireless telecommunication networks to allow communication with other communication devices such as VOIP phones, mobile phones, pagers and the like. In the case of communication devices taking the form of computer systems, appropriate input and output peripherals, as would be readily apparent to the person skilled in the art, are connected to allow for proper interaction between the operator and the computer

Substitute Sheet (RuIe26)RO/AU system. Furthermore, interaction between operator and communication device may be by way of graphic user interfaces or by way of text-based displays.

The manager program 106 may also take the form of a combination of computer programs rather than a single program having modules assigned to the tasks specified above. In its combination form, the programs may be scattered about the computer network as required.

Additionally, the system as described above may include appropriate security features to ensure that actions are not inappropriately created or assigned to certain parties or that such actions are not escalated in an inappropriate manner.

It should be appreciated by the person skilled in the art that the above invention is not limited to the embodiment described. In particular, the following modifications and improvements may be made without departing from the scope of the present invention:

• The method and system as described above may be modified to handle multiple actions at the same time. In such a configuration it is expected that each position will have a list of actions associated therewith in the data store and that processing will occur in respect of each action on the list of actions.

• The escalation tree employed to handle the escalation of a particular action may be different from the escalation tree employed to handle the escalation of a different action. In such a scenario, the operator may be required to define the actions to which the escalation tree applies at the time of creation of the escalation tree. Alternatively, the person whom creates an action to be managed by the system or method as described above may be responsible for selecting the appropriate escalation tree to be used at the time of creation of the action.

• As indicated in the second embodiment of the invention described above, the escalation tree ideally follows a corporation's organisation chart with higher nodes representing higher positions in the corporation. However, in respect of certain actions, the escalation tree may differ substantially to a corporation's organisation chart or include entities external to the corporation. For example an auditor may be required to supervise the actions of a department manager in preparing audit information in a situation where the auditor would otherwise be lower in the organisation chart than the department manager. Similarly, the

Substitute Sheet (Rule2C)RO/AU method and system can be used to allow parent companies to monitor the actions of subsidiary companies.

• In a skeletal implementation of the system and/or method, if an action does not meet the predefined management criteria, a person or persons occupying a higher node in the escalation tree may be notified only of the failure without reassignment of the action to such person or persons.

• The method of alerting persons to the non-completion of an action may take alternative forms to those described above. For instance, other alternative methods of alerting such people may include short messaging service ("SMS") messages, pager messages, electronic mail messages, automated telephone calls, or other forms of communication message as would be apparent to the person skilled in the art.

• The method and/or system may be modified to allow for certain actions to be automatically generated and assigned to a position on a recurring basis. For instance, a monthly check of fire extinguishers may be assigned to health, safety

& environment personnel.

• While the above method and system have been described in the context of actions being allocated to a particular person occupying a position, actions may be assigned purely to the position itself. In such situations, responsibility for completing the action lies with each person who holds that position.

• In the second embodiment described above the emphasis is on the person assigned the task to provide the necessary details of their performance for assessment against the predefined management criteria. However, in other embodiments that fall within the scope of the invention, such details may be obtained automatically through independent modules or programs. For example, where the predefined management criteria is ensuring that a staff member has recorded details of how they spend eight (8) hours of their day each day for a week, the management system 112 may interrogate the timesheet program used to record such details to determine whether the management criteria has been met. ^'

Substitute Sheet (Rule26) RO/ATJ • In the second embodiment described above the decision on who to alert or escalate an action to at the second node has been determined on a random basis. However, any embodiment of the invention may decide whom to alert or escalate the action to on a number of different bases. For instance, the decision may be rigidly pre-defined or determined by reference to a variety of factors

(such as workload, physical capability or such other factors as the management system may have access to in respect of a person who occupies a position). In one alternative arrangement of the invention, the decision on whom to escalate an action to may be a determination made by a person alerted to the incompleteness of the action.

• In the same manner that the system as described in the second embodiment of the invention makes checks to determine whether a position is filled, the system may be further modified to cover situations where the position is filled, but the person filling the position is temporarily absent (for instance, they are on holidays or secondment elsewhere). In this manner, an alert or escalation that would otherwise be assigned to the person filling that position can be escalated further to someone who may act on the notification or action, as appropriate.

• It is not required that an alert be sent solely to a person, or persons occupying a single position. Depending on the action concerned, alerts may be sent to more than one position (or the person (s) occupying such positions) is progress of the action is not meeting the predefined management criteria.

• The operator may, at the time of defining the nodes of an escalation tree using the hierarchy definition module 110, enter in further personal information in respect of the position to be associated with that node. This additional information may include professional qualifications or the like. Furthermore, this additional information may be used by the hierarchy definition module 110 to generate branches between nodes which may be kept or reconfigured by the operator as required.

• Where a person or position may receive a number of alerts in respect of incomplete actions, a report collating all of the alerts may be generated and transmitted to the person or position (as appropriate) in place of sending individual alerts.

Substitute Sheet (Rule26) RO/AU • In conjunction with the predefined management criteria, further criteria may be set to determine when only an alert should be sent to a higher position in the escalation tree and when the action should be escalated to be actioned by a person in a higher position in the escalation tree.

• The hierarchical definition module 110 may be accessed by appropriate personal at any time to re-organise the escalation tree. The hierarchical definition module 110 is also arranged to store data representative of the escalation tree for subsequent reference by the management program 108.

• The hierarchy definition module 110 may be replaced or supplemented with an additional module that allows an escalation tree generated or modified by an external program to be imported and used by the system 100 as described in the second or third embodiments of the invention.

• In the first embodiment, the comparison between progress made in respect of an action and the predefined management criteria can be independent of a person providing details of progress in respect of such action. Accordingly, the comparison may be made at periodic intervals, thus allowing the capture of situations where an action has not even been commenced at the time of comparison.

Furthermore, the features described in the above embodiments and the additional features mentioned above may be combined to form yet additional embodiments that fall within the scope of the present invention.

Substitute Sheet (Rule26) RO/AU

Claims

We Claim:

1. A method for managing an action comprising:

comparing the status of the action against management criteria; AND

alerting an occupant associated with a second position in the escalation tree if the result of the comparison is a result in an alerting set of results, the second position being equal to or higher than the first position in the escalation tree.

2. A method for managing an action according to claim 1 , including the steps of:

determining if a selected position is occupied; AND

3. A method of managing an action according to claim 1 , including the steps of:

determining if a selected position is occupied and the occupant is not temporarily absent; AND

deeming the selected position to be the second position if the selected position is occupied and the occupant is not temporarily absent.

4. A method of managing an action according to any one of claims 1 to 3, including the step of re-assigning responsibility for the action to the second position if the result of the comparison is a result in an escalating set of results, the escalating set of results being a sub-set of the alerting set of results.

5. A method of managing an action according to any one of claims 1 to 3, including the step of re-assigning responsibility for the action to a third position determined by the second position if the result of the comparison is a result in an escalating set of results, the escalating set of results being a sub-set of the alerting set of results.

6. A method of managing an action according to claim 4 or claim 5, where the method repeatedly re-assigns responsibility for the action to progressively higher positions in

Substitute Sheet (Rule 26) RO/AU the escalation tree until the status of the action equals a predetermined action status.

7. A method of managing an action according to any one of claims 1 to 6, including the step of setting a periodic time period, the step of comparing the status of the action against management criteria to be repeatedly performed after elapsing of the periodic time period until such time as the status of the action indicates completion.

8. A method of managing an action according to any one of claims 1 to 6, including the steps of:

setting a first time period, the step of comparing the status of the action against management criteria to be performed after elapsing of the first time period; AND

if the status of the action does not indicate completion, setting subsequent time periods at the elapsing of which the status of the action will again be compared to the management criteria until such time as the status of the action does not indicate completion.

9. A method of managing an action according to any one of claims 1 to 6, where the step of comparing the status of the action against management criteria is repeatedly performed on the occupant of the first position updating progress on the action.

10. A method of managing an action according to any preceding claim, where the method includes the step of re-defining the management criteria once the status of an action satisfies the existing management criteria.

11. A method for managing an action according to any preceding claim, including the step of defining the escalation tree.

12.A method for managing an action according to step 8, where the step of defining the escalation tree includes the sub-step of defining the escalation tree with reference to an organisation chart.

13. A method for managing an action according to any preceding claim where the step of assigning an action to the first position includes the sub-step of alerting the one or more persons who occupy the first position that they have been assigned the action.

Substitute Sheet (Rule26) RO/AU

14. A method of managing an action according to any preceding claim, including the step of keeping an audit trail in respect of at least one of: the alerts generated in respect of the action; the positions the action has been escalated to; the status of the action.

15.A method of managing an action according to claim 14, including the step of reporting on information kept as part of the audit trail.

16.A system for managing an action comprising:

a first set of persons

a manager; AND

at least one communications device by which a person in a second set of persons may be alerted, the manager communicable with the communications device

where, the manager is operable to assign an action to the first set of persons and further operable to compare the status of the action against management criteria, the manager operable to issue an alert to at least one person in the second set of persons by way of the communications device if the result of the comparison is a result in an alerting set of results and where the position occupied by the first set of persons is sub-ordinate or equal to the position occupied by the second set of persons in an escalation tree.

17.A system for managing an action according to claim 16, where the manager is further operable to determine if a selected position in the escalation tree is occupied and, if occupied, deem a set of persons who occupy the selected position as the second set of persons.

18.A system for managing an action according to claim 16, where the manager is further operable to determined if a selected position in the escalation tree is occupied and the occupant is not temporarily absent and, if occupied and the occupant is not temporarily absent, deem a set of persons who occupy the selected position as the second set of persons.

19. A system for managing an action according to any one of claims 16 to 18, where the manager is operable to re-assign responsibility for the action to the second set of

Substitute Sheet (Rnle26) RO/AU persons if the result of the comparison is a result in an escalating set of results, the escalating set of results being a sub-set of the alerting set of results.

20. A system for managing an action according to any one of claims 16 to 18, where the manager is operable to re-assign responsibility for the action to a set of persons who occupy a third position in the escalation tree if the result of the comparison is a result in an escalating set of results, the escalating set of results being a sub-set of the alerting set of results.

21. A system for managing an action according to claim 19 or claim 20, where the manager repeatedly re-assigns responsibility for the action to sets of persons occupying progressively higher positions in the escalation tree until the status of the action equals a predetermined action status.

22.A system for managing an action according to any one of claims 16 to 21 , where the manager is operable to compare the status of the action against management criteria repeatedly after elapsing of a periodic time period until such time as the status of the action indicates completion.

23.A system for managing an action according to any one of claims 16 to 21 , where the manager is operable to compare the status of the action against management criteria after elapsing of a first time period and, if the status of the action does not indicate completion, again comparing the status of the action against management criteria on the elapsing of subsequent time periods until such time as the status of the action indicates completion.

24.A system for managing an action according to any one of claims 16 to 21 , where the manager is operable to repeatedly compares the status of the action against management criteria whenever a person in the first set of persons updates progress of the action with the manager.

25.A system for managing an action according to any one of claims 16 to 24, where the manager is operable to provide for re-definition of the management criteria once the status of an action satisfied existing management criteria.

26.A system for managing an action according to any one of claims 16 to 25, where the manager includes a definition module, the definition module operable to define an escalation tree.

Substitute Sheet (Rule26)RO/AU

27.A system for managing an action according to claim 26, where the definition module is operable to define an escalation tree with reference to an organisation chart.

28.A system for managing an action according to any one of claims 16 to 27, where the system further includes at least one action communications device by which a person in the first set of persons may be alerted, the manager communicable with the action communications devices, the manager operable to alert at least one person in the first set of persons by way of an action communications device on an action being assigned to them.

29.A system for managing an action according to any preceding claim, where the manager includes an audit module, the audit module operable to keep an audit trail in respect of at least one of: the alerts generated in respect of the action; the positions in the escalation tree the action has been escalated to; the status of the action.

30. A system for managing an action according to claim 29, where the manager includes a reporting module, the reporting module operable to report on information kept as part of the audit trail.

31.A system for managing an action according to any one of claims 16 to 30, where the manager is operable to obtain information in respect of an action from other entities and use that information to determine the status of an action and whether the status of an action meets management criteria.

32. Apparatus for managing an action, the apparatus operable to facilitate the assignment of an action to a first position in an escalation tree, the first position having one or more occupants and thereafter compare the status of the action against management criteria, issuing an alert to an occupant associated with a second position in the escalation tree if the result of the comparison is a result in an alerting set of results where, the second position is equal to or higher in position in the escalation tree than the first position.

33. Apparatus for managing an action according to claim 32, where the apparatus is for performing the method of any one of claims 1 to 15.

34. A computer program product for managing an action, the computer program product including computer executable code which when implemented by a suitable

Substitute Sheet (Rule26) RO/AU processing system causes the suitable processing system to facilitate the assignment of an action to a first position in an escalation tree, the first position having one or more occupants and thereafter compare the status of the action against management criteria, issuing an alert to an occupant associated with a second position in the escalation tree if the result of the comparison is a result in an alerting set of results where, the second position is equal to or higher in position in the escalation tree than the first position.

35.A computer program product for managing an action according to claim 34, where the computer program product is for performing the method of any one of claims 1 to 15.

36.A method for managing an action substantially as described herein with reference to the figures.

37.A system for managing an action substantially as described herein with reference to the figures.

Substitute Sheet (Rule26)RO/AU