Abstract:
A work flow system is described in which an originator of a task creates a new task description via a standard graphical user interface. The standard graphical user interface includes information regarding the task, together with a responsible entity for performing a task. An automatic email notification system notifies the responsible entity, whose leader accepts, rejects, or modifies a task, as necessary. Thereupon, the task report for the assigned/rejected/approved/modified item is automatically email reported to the originator and to anyone to whom the task has been assigned. The life cycle of the task is a complete loop such that the originator of the task is the only entity permitted to close the task, and must mandatorily do so for the task to be closed by the data base.

Description:
FIELD OF THE INVENTION 
   This invention relates to business workflow systems, and particularly to databases and user interfaces associated with business workflow systems. 
   BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION 
   Monitoring task progression and completion within a corporate environment is complex. Frequently, within those environments, one will find that supervisors have created spreadsheets, project lists or other informal tracking systems to monitor the tasks assigned by and to the supervisor. When perhaps hundreds of tasks are assigned, it is difficult to keep a tab on the tasks and their status, to remember when and whether a task has been completed, and to review whether the task has been completed to the satisfaction of the issuer. 
   Computerized business workflow systems are known for providing scheduling and analysis of workflow. Such systems allow a supervisor to graphically view tasks, work projections, loading, and scheduling in a single format. The programs typically require vigilance on the part of the supervisor to ensure that tasks are active until completion and, when completed, completed to satisfaction. Prior systems do not give a combination of both simple, intuitive notification to the originator and workers when tasks are assigned, modified or completed, together with an action requirement that the originator, and only the originator (or a proxy for the originator) affirmatively close the loop on a workflow item before the system actually closes the item. 
   Ouchi (U.S. Pat. No. 6,539,404) describes a workflow system for processing a document, and adds that an over-the-counter email system within in the workflow can be used to notify others when tasks associated with the document processing are performed. The same email system can be used for notification of the occurrence of tasks by others. Ouchi does not disclose that the workflow system have an affirmative requirement by the document originator to complete a document review loop before the loop is closed by the system. Thus, a document review loop may be closed without requiring the originator to affirmatively close it. Notifying the originator of completion does not give the originator control over whether the item has been completed to the satisfaction of the originator before the item leaves the email distribution. Further, without an affirmative closure by the originator (effectively certifying that the item is finished to satisfaction), any reporting information regarding the efficiency or effectiveness of the workers is suspect. 
   Cherneff et al (U.S. Pat. No. 6,233,493) describes a computer implemented product development planning tool, specifically modeling techniques for the manufacturing of products and product components (as opposed to, for example, the document review process of Ouchi).  FIG. 7 , for example, illustrates a task progress view which lists the various tasks needed to be done for the completion of a particular assignment. Start times, finish times, durations and variances can be recorded and charted for purposes of efficiency evaluation. The technique described facilitates task modeling and scheduling. Cherneff shows various reporting techniques for task completion, but does not describe how the sources of the tasks, nor those responsible for the tasks interact in a constructive way with each other as the tasks are assigned, worked, and reported, except to record in the task tables, their necessity and their details associated with their occurrence (such as duration, etc.). Further, because the workflow does not have a mandatory return to an originator for closure, the reports of efficiency and effectiveness are suspect. For example, workers who “close” a task upon completion may be credited in the system for “completion,” “timeliness,” or other status that is more complimentary than the reality. As a result, reports reflective of performance are skewed by the information. 
   Marchak et al (U.S. Pat. No. 6,138,104) describes constructive interaction between various entities in a workflow. It describes a product development system that provides graphical user interfaces for reporting tasks, and their completion, and adds a work management tool where individual tasks are defined in terms of a sequence of life-cycle stages, where each stage defines the roles responsible for planning, doing, administering, and receiving the deliverable. Fields within the graphical user interfaces are made visible, modified, and added to reflect the information pertinent to the particular stage in which the deliverable resides. Specification can also be made as to who can edit fields in the life-cycle process, which attachments are visible, and who can edit attachments as the deliverables proceed through the life-cycle. The Marchak system runs on top of a database and an operating system, and provides network interaction. 
   Marchak defines and distinguishes doers, planners, distributors, and administrators in the life-cycle process. The system does not provide a full cycle, however, where the task workflow remains open until the originator of the task is satisfied that the task is fully completed to definition. Rather, Marchak states that each stage is complete only upon the entry of substantive information required to create the discrete work deliverable. In one such example, a program is included “allowing said appropriate user to indicate that work on the category instance has been completed,” leaving off the requirement for the originator to accept the unilateral indication. As specifically described, work flow occurs “when a user checks out a deliverable to work on it” and ends “when a user checks the deliverable back into the system.” The originator, meanwhile, is not required to return to the loop. 
   As a whole, prior workflow techniques fail to provide a truly complete loop of product (or other task) development where a simple, intuitive, graphics-based system coordinates the product (or other task) development through to completion at which time the originator (or proxy) must close the open item. Known workflow systems are either not particularly intuitive (such as custom spreadsheet or database programs), are trackers more than accountability engines (such as schedulers), or fail to provide valid reporting of true productivity (such as systems with only partial life cycle accountability). 
   BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION 
   The LOP (List of open points) system is a network-based (preferably, Web-based) tracking, planning and reporting tool that addresses day-to-day tasks of the work environment in a simple and easy-to-use interface—and provides complete accountability of progress and effectiveness in completing tasks. The LOP system in its preferred form assists the overall organization in addressing large numbers of tasks and open items in a planned and organized manner. Plus, because of its intuitiveness and widespread availability, the LOP system allows every individual in the organization to access the system so results arise from data obtained by the maximum exposure of the system to the business entity as a whole. With the system, progress tracking, reporting, history review and proper escalation can be achieved in a matter of a few intuitive clicks. 
   The LOP system includes a database and graphical user interfaces. In its preferred form, the LOP system operates in conjunction with a standard over-the-counter database application operating on a code device communicating with other code devices via a network. On the database is stored a table of fields including a field to assign a unique identification number to each open item, a field to identify a group responsible for the task and an originator of the task, a text field to provide comments regarding the task as it progresses toward completion, and a field to indicate a current status of the task. The status field can include a status item that indicates closure or satisfactory completion of the task. That status should be both restricted for selection only by the originator, and mandatory for the originator to choose (or reject) when the status is regarded as completed by the responsible group. 
   The LOP system also includes graphical user interface routines to create intuitive, user-friendly graphical user interfaces for completion, modification, and transfer of the open item during its life cycle. Finally, the LOP system includes a notification engine to automatically notify at least one personnel other than the originator when the task is created, at least the originator when the status of the task is altered thereafter, and the originator when the task is identified as completed by the responsible group. 
   A report facility lets the supervisors view reports identifying timely completion of tasks by responsible group or other such filters. The facility is unique in that the completion information is realistic to the successful, satisfactory completion of the assignment by the customer of the task (indicated by the closure of the open item by the originator and only the originator), rather than by the unilaterally dictated completion of the assignment by the responsible entity. 

   
     BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS 
       FIG. 1  is a schematic representation of an example embodiment of the LOP life cycle; 
       FIG. 2  is an example type of graphical user interface for creating new LOP items; 
       FIG. 3  is an example type of graphical user interface for approving new LOP items; 
       FIG. 4  is an example type of graphical user interface for transferring LOP items; 
       FIG. 5  is an example type of graphical user interface for delegating an LOP item; 
       FIG. 6  is an example type of graphical user interface for searching for LOP items; 
       FIG. 7  is an example type of graphical user interface for reporting on LOP items; 
       FIG. 8  is an example type of graphical user interface for reporting on LOP assignment response times; 
       FIG. 9  is an example type of graphical user interface for administering account information; 
       FIG. 10  is a schematic representation of an example LOP database structure; 
       FIG. 11  is a schematic representation of another aspect of an example LOP database structure; and 
       FIG. 12  is a schematic representation of an example system employing aspects an LOP database. 
   

   DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION 
   In a sizeable business environment, the task of maintaining, tracking, and documenting the progress of tasks to be performed is complex. Especially in, for example, the manufacturing environment, the identification of new tasks, the assignment, execution, supervision, analysis, completion, and confirmation of those tasks requires substantial personnel resources—just for administrative upkeep.  FIGS. 1-12  illustrate several embodiments of so-called LOP (List of open points) systems that more adequately control, track, and report on those open task complexities. 
   The life cycle of an LOP item starts with the originator when a new open point is created. It then proceeds through a series of actions that will eventually result in a closure status for the item. The system of  FIG. 1  is simple to use and requires virtually no special training for the originators of tasks or for those responsible for completing them. In every instance, the item returns to the originator at its conclusion to review and technically close if the work is satisfactory. 
   As shown in  FIG. 1 , the entire process employed by this embodiment comprises a complete and full circle, beginning and ending with the originator, who creates the task within the business process, passes it through the responsible groups that will complete the task, and closes the task at its satisfactory conclusion. This cycle permits and mandates that the originator remain a part of the solution from beginning to end, and to subjectively determine how and when the open task has been completed appropriately before closure will occur. 
   The network aspects of the LOP system provide widespread distribution of the system across the business environment so the originator can easily stay in the workflow loop, and more importantly begin and end the workflow cycle. 
   The workflow cycle of the open point item in  FIG. 1  begins when the originator in step  10  creates a new open point (in the LOP system) by entering the open point information into a graphical user interface designed for creation of such (for example,  FIG. 2 ). The new open point can be a new task to be performed, a new manufacturing effort, an administrative detail, and engineering design effort, a sales effort, or any other business process (large or small) that needs to be addressed by a group within the business environment. After its introduction, the cycle proceeds through a series of actions (steps  11  through  15 ) that eventually results in completion of the task by the responsible group and a return to the originator for review and technical close should the work on the task have proven satisfactory to the originator (at step  16 ). When the originator  10  creates the new open point, a responsible group is assigned to the task. A group leader of the responsible group (responsible for completing the task) approves and assigns the open point to someone within the group, at step  11 . A specialist within the responsible group can also be assigned to the open point to investigate and plan completion, at step  12 . The open point is implemented and managed by the specialist in the responsible group at step  13 , and is tracked, confirmed, and completed in the responsible group, at step  14 . At step  15 , the originator returns back into the LOP life cycle loop to review the open point and check if it meets the requirements originally set and/or modified by the originator. If the work completion meets the originator&#39;s design, the originator closes the task at step  16 . If not, the open point is returned by the originator to the responsible group (or some other group) for further effort. 
     FIG. 12  illustrates one example type of a system in which an LOP system can operate. The system of  FIG. 12  provides network access to the user interfaces and database that will be described in more detail below. System  225  is centered on a network  237 , which may be the Internet, an intranet, LAN, WAN, wireless network, etc. Workstations  238  (and workstation groups  245 ,  246 , and  247 ) communicate with each other via the network  237 . Workstation  238  is shown by way of example and other workstation types of hardware and software will be known to the artisan. Elements of workstation  238  are also shown by way of example and may be embodied separately (as shown), in combination, in hardware, or in software, as design choice permits. 
   The example of workstation  238  includes a network interface  239  which may be a standard network card, such as an Ethernet or other communication card, communicating with a network server (not shown), a modem (not shown), or other such device. In the typical embodiment, network interface  239  physically adjoins other workstation hardware  242 , such as a motherboard, backplane, or other hardware structure. The hardware structure also includes a processor  243  and memory  244 , which respectively process and store the graphical user interfaces and database information described below for display on a workstation monitor. The processor  243  is also associated with a workstation operating system (not shown) that is stored in the memory  244  of the hardware  242 . Also included in the workstation  238  is an email facility  241  (such as those commercialized under the names Groupwise, Outlook, etc.). LOP user application  240  provides the software instruction sets necessary for the processor  243  to create the graphical user interfaces, and to communicate with the database server  230 . 
   The invention is not limited to the particular hardware or software structures shown or described with respect to  FIGS. 2-12 , but may be embodied in a variety of different kinds and types of hardware/software component combinations. The invention can also be embodied solely as a software application. The hardware and software structures shown in  FIG. 12  are meant to illustrate general concepts of the inventories and not necessarily the only form in which the invention can be embodied. 
   Additional workstations may also be included in the system  225 , which workstations together with the workstation  238  may form a coherent group of access points for a large number (or all) or a company&#39;s relevant employee base. Workstations can be shared by different employee types (such as those who typically operate as work originators versus those who are work responsible) or may dedicated to particular users. Each employee also need not be designated “originator” or “responsible” to the exclusion of the other title, but may (and very likely will) assume originator status for some open items and responsible status for others. Still, in the example of FIG.  12 —just by way of illustration—workstations  245  are shown for originators, workstations  246  are shown for responsible entities, and workstations  247  are shown for hybrids. 
   The database  235  from which all of the information associated with the LOP life cycle can be stored on the individual workstations  238 ,  245 ,  246 , and  247  in a distributed manner, or may (as shown in  FIG. 12 ) be centralized at a database server  230 . The database server  230  also includes a network interface  231  (which can be, but need not be, identical or similar to network interface  239 ). Server hardware  226  provides a server motherboard or other suitable hardware interface. The hardware can include a processor  233  and memory  234 , within which the centralized database  235  is stored. LOP application  232  is included in server  230  and may be stored on memory  234 . The LOP application  232  may be software running on a computer code device and may control the creation of GUIs, the communications, and the database interaction. Some aspects of the LOP application  232 , as described in the embodiments below may be alternatively embodied within certain database applications that make up the database  235 . Email facility  236  provides email capability for the database server to communicate with the corresponding workstations connected to the network  237 , as will be described in greater detail below. 
   The creation of GUIs can be performed by the LOP application  232  or may, preferably, be performed by the LOP application  240  (i.e., locally) based on raw database information received from the server  230 . Thus, the functions described herein can be more or less distributed and/or centralized and still encompass the concepts of the invention. 
   An example of an LOP database  235  is shown in  FIGS. 10 and 11 . The database need not take the exact form of the tables, variables, and keys described with respect to  FIGS. 10 and 11 , but may take other suitable forms consistent with the life cycle described. Qualified database designers can, with the teachings contained herein, create other database designs suitable for the present invention, which may include more or less tables and more or less fields. Tables and fields may also take different names and forms and still be within the concepts of the present invention. Thus,  FIGS. 10 and 11  provide an excellent example of how the database can be organized to attain the full life cycle objectives. 
   The structure of the example database comprises three base-level table types, each of which serves a different purpose within the system  225  as a whole. The three database tables types are main database tables, support tables, and administration tables. Each will be described, in turn, below. 
   The primary purpose of main database tables is to hold all of the entries of the LOP items generated, including current master data and historical master data. Two main database tables are shown in  FIGS. 10 and 11 , namely LOP_Admin.Approval  200  in  FIG. 10  and LOP_Admin.Master_Record  210  in  FIG. 11 . The LOP_Admin.Master_Record  210  contains a unique record set for every LOP item created in the system. The fields in the table LOP_Admin.Master_Record  210  include:
         (1) LOP_Num, which is an automatically generated unique number identifying an LOP action item.   (2) Date_Initiated, which identifies the data a new LOP item is created, and defaults to the system date.   (3) Date_Due, which is a calendar script (such as a Java script calendar) that allows the originator to select a desired due date for a new LOP item.   (4) Model_Type, which is a text field that allows the selection of projects currently running at a company, facility, etc.   (5) originator, which is a test field identifying the name of the person who creates an open point.   (6) Originating_Group, which is a text field identifying the name of a work group that includes the originator.   (7) LOP_Item_Desc, which is a text field used by the originator to describe the type of problem at hand.   (8) Priority, which is a text field to assigned high, medium, or low to the open point.   (9) Responsible_Group, which is a text field selected by the originator to identify the group to which the task is assigned.   (10) Safety, which is a true/false Boolean field to flag those items that are safety related.   (11) Originating_Subgroup, which is a text field identifying a sub-group to which the originator is a part.   (12) Responsible_Subgroup, which is a text field identifying a sub-group to which the task is assigned.       

   Of those fields, the LOP_Num field is automatically filled by the LOP application  232  in database  235  to provide a unique numerical identifier to each newly created LOP. Other fields, such as the Model_Type, originator, Originating_Group, Priority, Responsible_Group, Originating_Subgroup, and Responsible_Subgroup fields are populated (once the originator makes a selection) either by a support table or an administration table, as described below. Example field character lengths are shown in parenthetical in  FIGS. 10 and 11  with respect to each text field. 
   The LOP_Num field is defined as a non-null, number key within the database  235 . Because it is auto-fill in the LOP_Admin.Master_Record table  210 , it will always contain a number unique to the particular LOP keyed thereto. The LOP_Num field is the only key field in the LOP_Admin.Master_Record table  210 . 
   In addition, other “generic” fields can be included in the database table to allow customization of the application to the specific needs of the organization. For example, an attachment or link field can be used in this case. If such fields become part of the LOP_Admin.Master_Record table, the same will apply for LOP_Admin.Approval Table. 
   Once entered, the records in LOP_Admin.Master_Record  210  will await approval, rejection, or a transfer action that will be taken by the appropriate person listed in the LOP_Admin.Lead_Coord (administration table)  202  based on the selected responsible_group and responsible_subgroup fields therein. Once the LOP is approved, rejected or transferred, a record set for that open point is inserted in the LOP_Admin.Approval table  200 . Meanwhile, the LOP_Admin.Master_Record table  210  always holds the original data as entered by the originator when the LOP is created. 
   In the second main database table, the LOP_Admin.Approval table  200  of  FIG. 10 , the following fields are included:
         (1) LOP_Num, which is the same number generated initially in the LOP_Admin.Master_Record Table  210 .   (2) LOP_Status, which is a text field holding the latest status of a LOP, such as In Progress, Completed, Closed, Rejected, etc.   (3) AssignedTo, which is a text field containing the name of the person that will be responsible for managing the LOP.   (4) Modified_Due Date, which is a data field containing a due date for which the LOP as modified is then due.   (5) Modified_Priority, which is a text field indicating a modified priority status.   (6) Follow_On_Info, which is a large text field for originators or responsible entities to add messages regarding activity after the LOP origination.   (7) Counter_Action, which is a large text field for entry of textual messages related to counter actions to be performed.   (8) Approval_Date, which is a date field which is not displayed but is a system stamp of time and date.   (9) Modified_By, which is a text field identifying the entity who modified the LOP.   (10) Modification_Date, which is a date field identifying where an LOP was modified.   (11) Safety, which is the same Boolean true/false field used in the master record to flag items that are safety related.       

   None of the fields in the LOP_Admin.Approval table  200  are auto-fill fields, and all of the fields except the LOP_Num and Safety fields (which come from the corresponding LOP_Admin.Master_Record table  210 ) are populated by either a support table or an administration table, as will be described with respect to  FIGS. 10 and 11 . 
   The LOP_Admin.Approval table  200  contains record sets of every update of an LOP item. While the LOP_Admin.Master_Record table  210  holds the unique original record of each LOP, the LOP_Admin.Approval table holds the history for each of the LOPs that have been modified, approved, transferred, rejected, completed, etc. 
   The Lop Num field was auto-filled in the LOP_Admin.Master_Record table  210  as a non-null, number key and is simply transferred with the LOP information to the LOP_Admin.Approval table  200  when the LOP is modified, approved, transferred, rejected, completed, etc. The LOP_Status and the AssignedTo fields are variable character fields and are keys. The Modification_Date field is a date field and is a key. The remaining fields in the LOP_Admin.Approval table  200  are not keys. 
   When an LOP is first created, a record set of the fields shown in table  210  is stored, including LOP number, initiation date, due date, model, originator, originator&#39;s group, item description, priority, responsible group, safety rating, originating sub-group and responsible sub-group—all in accordance with the corresponding fields of table  210  shown in  FIG. 11 . The LOP_Admin.Master_Record table  210  thus contains a unique set of data associated with each LOP ever created. 
   After modification, approval, rejection, transfer, or other action on the LOP, a record set with the action and the field information shown in  FIG. 10  is populated to the LOP_Admin.Approval table fields from either the LOP_Admin.Master_Record table  210  or from support tables. That information corresponding to the those fields will identify the same LOP number from table  200 , the status, assignment, modified due date (if any), modified priority rating (if any), follow-on information, counter action, approval date, modifier&#39;s identity, modification date, and safety rating. Thus, as the LOP progresses, the LOP_Admin.Approval table  200  records the updated records to reflect the progress. Once the LOP is completed (by the responsible entity) and closed (by the originator), for example, that status will be recorded in the table  200 . 
   Of course, the tables  200  and  210  can be combined into a single table, as can all of the tables being described herein. But, for purposes of modularity and design choice, the example described herein divides the main database tables into two pieces, table  200  and table  210 . Other alternatives for combining, dividing, merging, and separating the various tables are to be included within the bounds of this invention. 
   The second base level table type are the support tables that provide population data for fields of the master tables. Examples are shown in  FIG. 11 , in which table LOP_Admin.Product table  211  contains a non-null text key field. As shown in  FIG. 11 , this table populates the Model_Type field of the LOP_Admin.Master_Record table  210  such that a pop-up selection menu of model types  25  (recorded in the LOP_Admin.Product table  211 ) is provided to the originator when the originator receives the LOP creation graphical user interface of  FIG. 2 . 
   LOP_Admin.Originating_Group table  212  contains a non-null text key field. As shown in  FIG. 11 , this table populates the Originating_Group field of the LOP_Admin.Master_Record table  210  such that a pop-up selection menu of originating groups  26  (recorded in the LOP_Admin.Originating_Group table  212 ) is provided to the originator when the originator receives the LOP creation graphical user interface of  FIG. 2 . 
   LOP_Admin.Priority table  213  contains a non-null text key field. As shown in  FIG. 11 , this table populates the Priority field of the LOP_Admin.Master_Record table  210  such that a pop-up selection menu of possible priorities  30  (recorded in the LOP_Admin.Priority table  213 ) is provided to the originator when the originator receives the LOP creation graphical user interface of  FIG. 2 . Also, the LOP_Admin.Priority table  213  links to the Modified_Priority field of the LOP_Admin.Approval table  200  where modifications to priorities are recorded. The priority table  213  provides data for a pop-up menu of possible priorities (high, medium, urgent, or other priority characterization). 
   LOP_Admin.Responsible_Group table  214  contains a non-null text key field. As shown in  FIG. 11 , this table populates the Responsible_Group field of the LOP_Admin.Master_Record table  210  such that a pop-up selection menu of available responsible groups  31  (recorded in the LOP_Admin.Responsible_Group table  214 ) is provided to the originator when the originator receives the LOP creation graphical user interface of  FIG. 2 . 
   LOP_Admin.Originating_Subgroup table  215  contains two fields: the Originating_Group from table  212  and a corresponding Originating_Subgroup field. Both are non-null text key fields. As shown in  FIG. 11 , this table populates the Originating_Sub Group field of the LOP_Admin.Master_Record table  210  such that a pop-up selection menu of available originating sub-groups  28  (recorded in the LOP_Admin.Originating_Subgroup table  215 ) is provided to the originator when the originator receives the LOP creation graphical user interface of  FIG. 2 . 
   The LOP_Admin.Responsible_Subgroup table  216 , which contains two fields: the Responsible_Group from table  214  and a corresponding Responsible_Subgroup field. Both are non-null text key fields. As shown in  FIG. 11 , this table populates the Responsible_Subgroup field of the LOP_Admin.Master_Record table  210  such that a pop-up selection menu of available responsible sub-groups  32  (recorded in the LOP_Admin.Responsible_Subgroup table  216 ) is provided to the originator when the originator receives the LOP creation graphical user interface of  FIG. 2 . 
   The final support table shown in  FIG. 11  supports only the LOP_Admin.Approval table  200 , and is the LOP_Admin.Status table  217 . This table  217  contains a non-null text key field identifying status texts. As shown in  FIG. 11 , this table populates the LOP_Status field of the LOP_Admin.Approval table  200  such that a pop-up selection menu of available status types  55  (recorded in the LOP_Admin.Status table  217 ) is provided to the user when the user receives the LOP approval/modify graphical user interface of  FIG. 3 . 
   In general, the information in LOP_Admin.Master_Record table  210 , with its corresponding support tables shown in  FIG. 11  supports the corresponding GUI fields in the New LOP Item menu  20  of  FIG. 2 . The same table  210  also supports the corresponding informational window  21  of  FIG. 2  for a newly created LOP item. 
   The information in both LOP_Admin.Master_Record table  210  and LOP_Admin.Approval table  200 ; with their corresponding support tables shown in  FIGS. 10 and 11  support the corresponding GUI fields in the LOP Item Approval menu  39  of  FIG. 3 . The same tables  200  and  210  also support the corresponding informational window  62  of  FIG. 3  for an approved/modified LOP item. 
     FIG. 10  illustrates the third base level type of table: the administration tables. There, LOP_Admin.Associate table  201  includes information related to the identity, logon, and email address, for all users of the LOP database within the organization. Thus, the table  201  contains three fields, the log-on text field (key), name text field (key), and email address field (key). The information in table  201  is linked to the AssignedTo field of the LOP_Admin.Approval table  200  and is used by the LOP applications  232  and  240  to identify and automatically link (via, for example, email facilities  236  and  241  over network  237 ) the LOP information to originating and/or responsible entities at the proper time in accordance with the status of the LOP (via changes made to the LOP_Status field). 
   The LOP_Admin.Lead_Coord table  202  includes information identifying group leaders within the organization. The group leaders identified herein will be the ones assigning, rejecting, or transferring newly created LOP items as necessary. Their log-on, department, and area, are respectively stored in NT_Logon, Dept_Group, and Area text key fields. The LOP_Admin.Lead_Coord table  202  is used mainly as part of the automatic email notification system when LOP items are created. Thus, for example, when an originator creates a new LOP via GUI  20  of  FIG. 2 , selecting certain Originating Group choices in field  26 , Originating Sub Group choices in field  28 , Responsible Group choices in field  31 , and Responsible Sub Group choices in field  32  will prompt automatic email notifications to one or more corresponding group leaders for approval, rejection, modification, etc. Those group leaders&#39; personal information for the email facility  236  to employ for the notification are located in LOP_Admin.Lead_Coord table (with further reference to the corresponding NT_Logon and Email fields of the same person, as identified in LOP_Admin.Associate table). When a group leader is not available, or for backup purposes, one or more proxies or delegates (or other hierarchical assignments) for each group leader can be automatically stored (and automatically emailed) via the LOP_Admin.Delegates table  203 . That table has four non-null key fields, identifying (from top to bottom of table  203  in  FIG. 10 ), the name of an associate, name of a delegate, start, and stop dates (for active proxy periods). 
   The operation of the databases of  FIGS. 10 and 11  will now be described, with particular reference to the graphical user interfaces of  FIGS. 2-9 . An originator of an open point uses workstation  238  to contact the database server  230  via the network  237 . LOP User Application  240 , operating on the workstation hardware coordinates the interaction with its counterpart LOP application  232  at server  230 . A graphical user interface shell is provided (preferably by LOP application  240  to reduce bandwidth requirements of sending video information over the network  237 , but alternatively by the LOP application  232 ) for the originator to interact with the LOP application  232  of the database server  230 , to load the new open point information into the database  235 . That shell can be seen in  FIG. 2 , where the substantive information in the various field entries is removed. 
   GUI  20  in  FIG. 2  is headed by a title “New LOP Item”  22  or other suitable title informing the originator that the screen is particularly purposed for the loading of new LOP information into the database  235 . Ultimately, when the shell is filled by the originator with field information (an example of which is shown in  FIG. 2  and will be described below), the originator clicks the “Submit” key  33  and the information in the fields is loaded into the corresponding fields of the LOP_Admin.Master_Report table  210  ( FIG. 11 ) in the database  235 . Once the originator&#39;s new LOP information is stored in the LOP_Admin.Master_Report table  210 , it remains, unchanged. 
   The fields in the GUI  20  correspond with some of the fields described previously with respect to the database tables of  FIGS. 10 and 11 . The GUI  20  includes a header  22  identifying the screen as a new LOP entry screen. 
   Date window  23  accepts the entry of a current date when the originator creates the new open point alternatively, date window  23  can automatically enter a current date. The date entered in the date window  23  is loaded into the Date_Initiated field in table  210  ( FIG. 11 ) when the originator clicks the “submit” button  33 . 
   The originator window  24  ( FIG. 2 ) identifies the person originating the new open point and loads into the originator field in table  210  ( FIG. 11 ). The arrow in window  24  initiates the drop down menu of possible solutions from table  201 . 
   The Model window  25  identifies, for example, a product model. A drop down menu in the Model window  25  draws information from the LOP_Amin.Product field of table  211 , such that a list of all models in the table  211  can be seen and selected by the originator creating the new open point. The Model window  25  loads into the Model_Type field of table  210 . 
   The Originating Group window  26  identifies the originator&#39;s work group. A drop down menu in the Originating Group window  26  draws information from the LOP_Amin.Originating_Group field of table  212 , such that a list of all groups in the table  212  can be seen and selected by the originator creating the new open point. The Originating Group window  26  loads into the Originating_Group field of table  210 . 
   The Originating Subgroup window  28  identifies the originator&#39;s work subgroup. A drop down menu in the Originating Subgroup window  28  draws information from the LOP_Amin.Originating_Subgroup field of table  215 , such that a list of all groups in the table  215  can be seen and selected by the originator creating the new open point. The Originating Subgroup window  26  loads into the Originating_Subgroup field of table  210 . 
   The Responsible Group window  31  identifies the group that originator assigns to be responsible for the open point. A drop down menu in the Responsible Group window  31  draws information from the LOP_Amin.Responsible_Group field of table  214 , such that a list of all groups in the table  214  can be seen and selected by the originator creating the new open point. The Responsible Group window  31  loads into the Responsible_Group field of table  210 . 
   The Responsible Subgroup window  32  identifies the originator&#39;s work subgroup. A drop down menu in the Responsible Subgroup window  32  draws information from the LOP_Amin.Responsible_Subgroup field of table  216 , such that a list of all groups in the table  216  can be seen and selected by the originator creating the new open point. The Responsible Subgroup window  31  loads into the Responsible_Subgroup field of table  210 . 
   The Due Date window  27  allows the originator to set a due date for completion of the open point by the responsible group. A calendar script is provided with window  27  to run a calendar with selectable dates that can be automatically loaded into the window  27 . The Due Date window  27  loads into the Date_Due field of table  210 . 
   Finally, the GUI  20  includes a Description window where the originator can provide a text message to the responsible group related to the newly created open point. The description is loaded into the LOP_ITEM_DESC field in table  210 . 
   Once the information is provided into the various windows of the GUI  20 , the originator clicks the “submit” button  33  and the LOP application  232  then takes over with some of the automated procedures associated with this preferred embodiment. Specifically, the LOP application  240  at the workstation  238  prepares the field information into a format that is both transferable to the database server  230  (via appropriate transportation protocol conversions provided by the network interface  239 , network  237 , and network interface  231 ) and understandable to the LOP application  232 . The LOP application  232  at the database server  230  loads the current date, model, originator, and other information into the corresponding fields identified above of the table LOP_Admin.Master_Record  210 . That information is communicated by the LOP application  232  to the server hardware  226  for storage in the database  235 . 
   The LOP application  232  then queries the database  235 , specifically the LOP_Num field, to determine a next available unique number to be assigned to open points. The LOP application  232  then automatically fills in the LOP_Num field of table  210  by recording the next available unique number, which will be permanently assigned to that particular open point through its life cycle ( FIG. 1 ). 
   The LOP application then prepares the submitted information chart  21  ( FIG. 2 ) and communicates the summary chart to the email facility  236  of the database server  230  (the email facility may in alternative embodiments interact with a separate email server). The LOP application then reads the Originator field, Originating_Group field, Responsible_Group field, and Responsible_Subgroup field from table  210  (or from the information communicated from the workstation  238  as previously entered in GUI  20 ). The LOP application then looks up the originator, group leaders, delegates, and associates from the LOP_Admin.Associate table  201  and the LOP_Admin.Delegates table  203  to locate identities and email addresses for them. The submitted information chart  21  is then communicated by email to the originator, Responsible Group leader, and Responsible Subgroup leader via the email facility  236 , network interface  231 , and network  237  to the respective workstations (for example,  244 - 247 ) associated with those people. 
   The LOP life cycle of  FIG. 1  thus begins at step  10  when the originator completes the GUI  20  fill-in for that particular new open point. After step  10 , the application  232  coordinates the communication of the chart  21  to the various entities described above. Also, the approval GUI  39  ( FIG. 3 ) is then communicated to the group leader of the Responsible Group identified in fields  31 / 32  ( FIG. 2 ) and LOP_Admin.Lead_Coord table  202  ( FIG. 10 ). The approval GUI  39  can be called up by the group leader when the group leader automatically receives the chart  21  via the email process identified above, or preferably, the approval GUI  39  is generated by one or both of the LOP application  232  and LOP application  240  (for the particular workstation  238 / 246 /etc. being utilized by the group leader) for retrieval as an automatic attachment to email notice with the chart  21 . In still another embodiment, the group leader can search for open items via the LOP item tracking search tool  42  that pulls up the open item status information (for example, some or all of windows  43 - 60 ) for review, approval, or assignment by the group leader. 
   Once the group leader receives the approval chart  39 , the life cycle reaches step  11  where the group leader approves and assigns the open item in the approval GUI  39 . The approval GUI  39  presents the group leader with certain information regarding the open item, including the tracking number  43  copied from the LOP_Num field of the LOP_Admin.Approval table  200 . The date the open item was initiated is shown in Date Initiated window  44 , which is copied from the Date_Initiated field of table  210 . So too, the Due Date window  46 , Model window  49 , originator window  45 , Originating Group window  47 , Originating Subgroup window  48 , Description window  50 , Priority window  51 , Responsible Group window  53 , and Responsible Subgroup window  54  are filled in from their corresponding fields in tables  210  and  200  (see, for example, the same corresponding fields and their window correlations described above with respect to  FIG. 2 ). 
   The Status field  52  is loaded from the LOP_Status field of table  200 . Note that the status field is not a field in the creation GUI  20 , nor of the LOP_Admin.Master_Record table because the status of all such newly created open items is set to “Not assigned” (or similar) once the open item is created (at step  10 ) but not yet approved (at step  11 ). Thus, the status field  52  in  FIG. 3  for the newly created LOP item number “6013” is “Not assigned” in the condition that the group leader would see for the information in the approval GUI  39  of  FIG. 3 . 
   That status is changed when the group leader approves and assigns the open item. In the approval step  11 , the group leader enters information in windows  55 - 60  to approve the open item for work, and to assign it to a specialist within the group. First, the status window  55  is changed (via the pull down menu of possible status conditions) to reflect the status of the open item following the group leader&#39;s action. If the open item is rejected, then the status is indicated as such, and an automatic email notification will be sent to the originator for the originator to either modify the open item, reassign it, or affirmatively close it in the LOP loop in  FIG. 1 . If instead the group leader assigns the item, the status is changed to “In Progress” (or similar), which status replaces the LOP_Status field in table  200  when the group leader clicks the “Submit” button  61 . 
   Other windows entered by the group leader include the “AssignedTo” window  56  that loads the AssignTo field of table  200 . A pull down menu on button  56  provides a listing from the table  201  for possible assignees within the corporate structure. The group leader can also modify the priority set by the originator in Modified Priority window  57 . Note that a change in the priority entered by the group leader has no impact on the Priority field in the table  210  associated with the original priority designation entered by the originator. The Modified Priority window loads the Modified_Priority field in table  200 . A pull down menu on button  57  permits the group leader to choose from various priority candidates. The group leader can modify the Due Date by entering a new due date in the window  58 . The calendar script can also be called up to assist in selecting the modified due date, by the associated calendar button on window  58 . The modified due date is loaded into the Modified_Due_Date field of table  200 . 
   The group leader can then enter textual information into the Preparation text box  59  to inform the specialist of specific preparations that the group leader believes necessary. The information is loaded into the Follow_On field of the table  200 . Finally, activity associated with the open item as it is being assigned, approved, rejected, performed, completed, etc. can be entered in the activity box  60 , which is loaded into the Counter_action field of table  200 . 
   The new information in the windows of  FIG. 3  are loaded into the corresponding fields of table  200  when the submit button  61  is clicked. Other fields in the table  200  are automatically entered when the group leader makes the submission. For example, the identity of the group leader who made the submission is recorded in the Modified_By field of table  200 . The date that the group leader submitted the approval or assignment is automatically recorded in the Modification_Date field of table  200 . 
   A chart  62  then reports the modifications made to the LOP open item, which chart is automatically emailed to the specialists to whom the group leader assigned the open item and (optionally) to the originator. The email notifications are automatically created and sent with the open item information via the LOP application  240  and email facility  241  working in conjunction with the network interface  239  and network  237 . Alternatively, all email notifications can be conducted from a centralized location, such as the email facility  236 , depending upon the design choice of a more centralized versus more distributed architecture desired. 
   Once the new open item is created (step  10 ), and approved (step  11 ), the specialist receives the email notification of the new open item and begins investigating and planning the open item completion in step  12 . Steps taken and progress made can be reported in the GUI  39 , which when submitted can produce automatic email reports and further recordations in Table  200 . The open item is then implemented and managed in the group, at step  13 . The progress can be tracked via search tools described belong, and can be confirmed and completed, at step  14 . As the LOP open item gains a new such status, the LOP_Status field of table  200  gets continually updated. When the status becomes “complete,” then the LOP application  240  automatically generates an email report to the originator at step  15 . The open item becomes “closed” in status only when the originator makes it so closed. For any given LOP number (i.e., open item), the closed status can be omitted from the pull-down menu for all users except the originator. The LOP life cycle is a completely closed loop system in that the originator of the open item is required and prompted to affirmatively close the open item (at step  16 ) before the item is truly completed. 
     FIG. 4  illustrates an LOP item transfer GUI  70 . The LOP tracking number  72  (from the LOP_NUM field of table  210  (as shown in window  72 ). Window  72  also includes a find button for locating the information associated with a particular LOP number entered in the LOP window  72 . When an LOP number is entered and the find button clicked, the information associated with the particular opened item, as recorded in the tables  200  and  210  as displayed in the elements  43 - 54 , corresponding to like numbered elements in  FIG. 3 . 
   The GUI  70  is particularly associated with an open item transfer from one responsible group or responsible sub-group to another. The header  71  indicates that the GUI  70  is an “LOP item transfer” to facilitate the transfer of responsibility for an open item from one entity to another. The responsible group to which the open item is transferred is entered in window  77  via the pull-down menu associated with window  77 . If a new responsible sub-group is being assigned, the responsible sub-group is entered into window  72  via the associated pull-down menu. Use of the responsible group window  77  and responsible sub-group window  72  are similar to a use of the responsible group and responsible sub-group windows  31  and  32  of  FIG. 2 . When modifications are made to the responsible group via the transfer windows  77  and  72 , the data entries in the associated Responsible_Group field and Responsible_Sub-group field of table  210  are modified accordingly. At the time of transfer, new activity information can be entered into the activity window  73 , similarly to the information entered in the activity window  60  of GUI  39 . 
   When the submit button  74  is clicked, the information and the responsible group window  77  and responsible sub-group window  72  are transferred to the corresponding fields in table  210  of data base  235 . The activity window information  73  is supplemented to the Counter_Action field of table  200  in the data base  235 . When the submit button is clicked  74 , the email facility  236 , together with LOP application  232  provides appropriate email notifications to the group leaders of the responsible group and responsible sub-group for email notifications of the chart information and GUI  39  of  FIG. 3 . When a transfer of an LOP takes place, and in order to preserve the history of the original LOP item, a new LOP is created and assigned to the task while the original LOP will take on a status of TRANSFERRED and will no longer become active. 
     FIG. 5  illustrates a GUI  80  for delegation of group leader responsibilities. The header  81  of “LOP delegate” indicates the GUI is intended for delegating responsibility for group leader approval/assignment to another person. In GUI  80 , window  82  provides a responsible associate and window  83  provides a delegate associate. The windows  82  and  83  have pull-down menus from which the employee information of table  201  and  202  can be provided for the selection of responsible associates and delegate associates. Window  84  provides a start date during which the proxy process is available from the group leader to the responsible associate or delegate associate and window  85  provides a concluding date for that proxy. When the group leader clicks the submit button  86 , the information in windows  82 - 85  are written to the corresponding fields of table  203  in data base  235 . Again, the LOP application  232  in combination with the email facility  236  can provide notifications to the chosen responsible associate and chosen delegate associate indicating their responsibility during the proxy period. 
   After a responsible associate and delegate associate are selected in windows  82  and  83  for a group leader, LOP approval GUI  39  ( FIG. 3 ) will be received by the responsible associate and/or the delegate associate identified in windows  82  and  83  for that particular group leader during the proxy period. Responsibility for completing the approval process in the GUI  39  then falls upon the responsible associate  82  and/or the delegate associate  83  in lieu of the group leader during the proxy time identified in windows  84  and  85 . The LOP application  232  automatically adds the LOP delegate information from table  203  for the particular group leader whenever a new open item is identified for the group leader, such that the responsible associate  82  and delegate associate  83  will automatically received the same email notifications provides to the group leader, as identified above, in lieu of, or in addition to the group leader during the proxy period. Upon reaching the end date of the delegate assignment, the authorization granted during the proxy period will be automatically revoked. 
   As shown in  FIG. 1 , the LOP life cycle also provides the opportunity to track open items in step  14 . One example method by which that tracking can occur is shown in  FIG. 6 . There, GUI  90 , with header  91  of “LOP item search” allows all (or specified) users to track open items by LOP tracking number. The LOP tracking numbers entered in window  92 , followed by a click on the search button of window  92 . The result causes the LOP application  232  to call the LOP information from the data base  235  and create the information necessary for the LOP user application  240  of the work station  238  to create the LOP information GUI  106  via step  104 . The LOP information GUI  106  includes two sections, section  107  with the original LOP item information from table  210  and modified LOP item information section  108  reporting the modification and status information for the open item from table  200 . A detailed description of each of the fields shown in sections  107  and  108  of GUI  106  will not be repeated here, as the corresponding sections have been described previously with respect to  FIGS. 2-5 . 
   Alternatively, the LOP item search GUI  90  provides the opportunity to search by a variety of filters (rather than by LOP tracking number, which may not be known). In window  93 , model number filters can be applied to sort LOP items applicable to some or all model types. LOP open items created by an originator can be filtered in window  94 , as can originating groups and filter window  95 . Responsible groups can be filtered in filter window  96 . Originating sub-groups and responsible sub-groups can be filtered via filter windows  102  and  103 , respectively. In the entity filters  94 ,  95 ,  96 ,  102 , and  103 , a user of the GUI  90  can identify open items for particular people and/or groups and/or combinations of such, such that personal responsibility can be assessed with respect to classes of LOP items. 
   LOPs can be filtered by current priorities in current priority filter  97 . In this filter, all LOP items, for example, that are high priority can be displayed. Similarly, the current status filter in window  98  can filter LOP open items according to their current status, as reflected in the LOP —— status field of table  200 . In this manner, LOP items which are in progress, completed, ready for approval, etc. can be identified. 
   LOP items can also be filtered by due date in due date filter  99 , which will provide LOP open items due prior to the dates specified. Finally, filters are provided for LOP items with AssignedTo field identifiers in window  100 . Key word searches can be performed on LOP open items in window  101 . 
   One or more of the filters  93 - 103  can be applied singularly or in any combination of one or more. When the “search” button is clicked, step  105  provides the results of the various filters set in windows  93 - 103  to provide the report  109 . The report  109  provides the LOP open items corresponding to the search criteria provided in windows  93 - 103  and include a header portion  110  identifying a key associated with the various entries  111  identified by the results of the search. 
   LOP item searches via GUI  90  can be performed by any of the employees in the system  225  ( FIG. 12 ) in order to identify open items according to various criteria, such as the ones to which they are responsible, the ones to which their group are responsible, the highest priority items, the ones which are recently due, etc. Alternatively, access restrictions can be mandated for various employees or class of employees. 
     FIG. 7  illustrates an LOP adherence report  120 , which can be provided as an administrative follow-up report for all LOP activity. The LOP adherence report provides an itemization of LOP items that are in progress and past due, as an indicator of efficiency with respect to the history of open item activity. Search criteria for the information is provided in fields  121  (model),  122  (originating group),  123  (responsible group),  124  (responsible sub-group),  125  (current priority),  126  (AssignedTo) such that the categorization of the adherence report can be tailored to the specific desires of the administrator. A help button  127  is also provided for assistance in preparing and understanding the adherence report. 
   The results of an adherence report according the fields entered in windows  121 - 126  include a quantitative analysis  128  reporting the responsible group  129 , the on-time percentage  130 , a set of overdue aged reportings  131 , a number of closed items performed by the responsible group  129 , and an LOP adherence percentage  133 . The responsible group numbers are totaled in line  134 . A summary of the information  135  is also provided to indicate for the various search criteria the number of open items by assigned, in progress, completed, rejected, and transferred for a total LOP item report. The information contained in the report  120  can be provided to administrative personnel for the purpose of evaluating efficiencies of various responsible groups as the open items are processed through the system  225 . Because the status field in the data base  235  associated with each LOP item is tracked in accordance with the time statuses are changed and the due date reported for that LOP item, on-time activity (and overdue activity) can be reported in the report  120  via the LOP application  232 . 
     FIG. 8  illustrates a report LOP assignment response time  136 . A header  137  identifies the report and fields  150 - 157  identify report criteria including the model  150 , originating group  151 , responsible group  152 , responsible sub-group  153 , current priority  154 , period  155 , status  156 , and the assigned to entity  157 . Information for the criteria identified in the fields  150 - 157  is reported with respect to the ability to respond on time, or overdue on particular LOPs. The information is reported in section  158  of the report  136  in which the responsible group is identified in section  159 , the total open items presented to the responsible group is identified in section  160 , the LOPs that were assigned on time to the responsible group identified in section  161 , the percentage of LOPs assigned on time identified in section  162 , the LOPs assigned too late identified in section  163 , the percentage of LOPs assigned too late identified in section  164 , and the average assigned time identified in section  165 , totals for the entire section of responsible groups identified in section  158  is identified in line  166 . 
     FIG. 9  illustrates an associate information GUI  170  in which an administration screen  169  provides an add, modify, delete associate account information selection to provide the GUI  170 . GUI  170  includes a header  171  identifying the form as one to enter, modify, or delete associate information. The GUI  170  loads the table  201  of  FIG. 10 . In GUI  170 , the associate&#39;s name is entered in window  172 . Associates can be searched using search button  173 , or the new associate information can be entered in section  174  and the “add” button of section  175  clicked to record the information in table  201 . In any event, the associate information is entered/modified in section  174 , the network log in for that associate is entered into section  174 , and the email address for that associate is entered in section  174 . The information entered in GUI  170  is used by the email facility  236  for purposes of communicating the various automatic email notifications. 
   As can be seen from the above description, various alternative kinds of data base structures can be envisioned within the scope of the present invention, and the present invention is not limited to the particular data base fields, structures, or hardwares described in the above preferred embodiment. Rather, LOP life cycle data bases in which an originator creates a new item, which item is not completed until a fully closed loop ends with the originator affirmatively closing the item can be envisioned within the present system. The present embodiment provides substantial functionality in improvements over “spreadsheet” systems, and other primitive data base systems in which tasks are assigned in the workflow, but are lost, misreported, or abandoned without follow-up. 
   In an alternative embodiment, the administrative options shown in  FIG. 9 , section  169  are limited depending upon the identity of the user. Thus, users with higher levels of responsibility may have higher levels of administration and reporting options, while employees of relatively lower responsibility (or such other classifications as are appropriate) have fewer administration and reporting options available to them. In this way, access to administrative functions can be limited such that, for example, an originator of an LOP item can be the only person with the administrative capability of closing an LOP item. In a more macroscopic sense, some users may be prevented entirely from accessing various GUIs, such as new open item creation GUI  20 , approval GUI  39 , etc. 
   The present system provides clear ease of use and is highly intuitive. The system is intranet-based such that communication between the various originators, responsible groups, specialists, etc. is easy and intuitive. A full cycle between the originator and the responsible entities is provided such that a mandated, complete and closed loop process returns the open item back to the originator—utilizing automatic email notifications—before the open item is officially closed. This means that the customers is always a part of the solution and has the final say as to whether an item has been completed or not. Detailed reporting techniques provide proper escalation procedures as needed, as LOP items are completed or become overdue. Further, history tracking provides documents information regarding the quantitative history of various entities&#39; ability to complete open items on time. 
   In its broadest form, the system is highly useful as a “corrective action system.” One such system was the well-recognized 8-Discipline problem solving technique described by the Ford Motor Company. Under that system—which is being implemented throughout manufacturing corporate communities—the “eight disciplines” include Use Team Approach, Describe the Problem, Implement and Verify Short-Term Corrective Actions, Define end Verify Root Causes, Verify Corrective Actions, Implement Permanent Corrective Actions, Prevent Recurrence, and Congratulate Your Team. As described, three of the eight disciplines specifically address corrective actions to which the LOP system has particular application (and hence indirect application to all eight disciplines). The invention is not limited to the 8-D approach nor to application with such an approach, but is applicable to corporate problem-solving, and productivity issues in general. 
   While the invention has been described in connection with what is presently considered to be the most practical and preferred embodiment, it is to be understood that the invention is not to be limited to the disclosed embodiment, but on the contrary, is intended to cover various modifications and equivalent arrangements included within the spirit and scope of the appended claims.