Process Flow Visibility · Continual Improvement

See Every Delay.
Measure Every Step.
Fix What Matters.

Process Flow Visibility is the connective tissue of most continual improvement work. Before applying Lean tools, Six Sigma analysis, or ITIL frameworks, you need to make the process visible — with real metrics, real timing, and a color language that turns complex data into shared understanding.

Why this is free

This is the diagnostic I use in client engagements. Run your process through it. If the numbers worry you, book a call. If they don't, you've still got a heat map worth keeping.

Important — Please Read

This tool is for informational and process-improvement purposes only and does not constitute financial, legal, cybersecurity, compliance, or operational advice. Users are responsible for validating all inputs, analyses, and decisions. By using this tool, you agree that csi.dewood.org is not liable for any decisions, actions, outcomes, or damages resulting from its use.

⚿ Built for a security audience. Security posture & how to verify it ↓

Green — Good: Maintain

Yellow — OK: Monitor

Red — Improve Now

The elevator ask — two questions, fifteen seconds

How many tickets, changes, or findings are open right now? How many finish in a week? Divide the first by the second — that's how long each one really takes. Does that cycle time work for your business? If not, the next thirty minutes shows you where the time goes — and why.

Map a process in the worksheet →2-minute assessment

Or pick your path: Explore Sample Workflows → Launch Worksheet → Investment & Return Calculator →

→

Flow

The PFV Process

// Five steps, each with the tool that supports it

Process Flow Worksheet

→

Quantify Impact

Investment & Return Calculator

→

Prioritize

Improvement Roadmap

// On a phone these stack top to bottom in the same order

■

Learn

Start With a Sample Workflow

// See how PFV applies to real cybersecurity and IT processes

Detection Engineering

Load in worksheet →

Vulnerability Remediation

View all sample workflows

All eleven benchmark-derived samples — each shown four ways (heat map, time scale, exposure, levers) — live on the Sample Workflows page. Patch deployment · Access provisioning · Access deprovisioning · Security change approval · Vendor risk review · Vulnerability remediation · Alert triage · Phishing triage · Incident response · Threat hunting · Detection engineering.

✓

Value

What Leaders Gain

// Outcomes, not deliverables

Faster Flow

Reduce waiting and delays.

Greater Capacity

Increase throughput without adding headcount.

Lower Exposure

Reduce risk created by operational delays.

Better Investment Decisions

Invest against the diagnosed cause of delay — not just its symptom — with confidence-weighted returns.

⚙

Tools

PFV Tools

// Three tools, one progression — assess, analyze and diagnose, then quantify

Assess

PFV Assessment Tool

What it does: Quickly identifies whether a process may contain significant operational exposure.

When to use it: Executive reviews and first-time users.

Start Assessment →

Learn more

The 2-minute assessment asks for one workflow's steps and waiting, then returns a calibrated exposure read — PCE, lead time, and a 90% confidence range benchmarked against the IBM MTTD. Its results hand directly into the Worksheet.

Analyze

Process Flow Worksheet

What it does: Performs a detailed PFV analysis of a workflow.

When to use it: Process owners and improvement initiatives.

Measures: Waiting · Work Done Twice · Team Transfers · Coordination Required · Operational Exposure

Launch Worksheet →

Learn more

Enter your process step by step and score the seven PFV metrics. Cells colour Green / Yellow / Red against your thresholds, producing a live heat map you can export to Excel. (Technical terms — queue time, rework, handoffs, dependencies — are retained in the worksheet column tooltips.)

Quantify

Investment & Return Calculator

What it does: Evaluates the business impact of improvement opportunities.

When to use it: Business cases and investment decisions.

Open Investment & Return Calculator →

Learn more

Takes the analyzed workflow and models the cost of delay, the recoverable capacity, and the ROI of improvement — with calibrated ranges, ready for a board-level business case.

Common process patterns — optional

Time Value Map · Common Security Processes

Most Lead Time Is Queue and Handoff, Not Active Work

This isn’t meant to be read row by row — the point is the pattern. Each strip is 100% of that process’s lead time: green is active work, red is queue and handoff. PCE = work ÷ lead time.

Across process after process, the red dominates — days, weeks, or months of elapsed time against hours of work. Pay attention to the shape, not the exact figures.

active work (solid) queue & handoff (hatched) 25% world-class line

George’s world-class service PCE = 25%. Every process here runs far below it.

Literature-modeled estimate — lead times from published benchmarks; active-work times estimated. Order-of-magnitude, not measured. PCE shown is linear (work ÷ work + queue); rework is counted once in the recovery levers, not here. Sources: Edgescan Vulnerability Stats 2025 · IBM Cost of a Data Breach 2025 · Mandiant M-Trends 2026 · Ponemon/Avatier 2025 · Gartner & Verizon DBIR 2024 · SANS SOC Survey 2025.

If this pattern is even directionally true in your environment, the question changes from “do we need more people?” to “where is the work waiting, and which queues create the most risk?” Map your own process ↑

Integrated Analytics Suite

PFV Operational Exposure Suite

Set thresholds → analyze your process → model the investment → estimate exposure cost. Each tool feeds the next.

Advanced Settings — Exposure Thresholds

①

First

PFV Exposure Thresholds

// Define what constitutes meaningful exposure in your environment

How thresholds work

These thresholds define what Green, Yellow, and Red mean for your specific process — set them from your VOC and CTQ sessions before adding tasks to the PFV Worksheet. Every cell in the worksheet and every metric in the Investment & Return Calculator analysis will instantly apply these values.

Step 1 Exposure Thresholds — Set Green / Yellow limits based on your VOC & CTQ

▼

Metric Dimension

Unit

🟢 Green Max

🟡 Yellow Max

🔴 Red Above

Process Context / Rationale

Performer Handoffs

Trigger / Input Type

0–2

Processing Time

hours

Queue Time

days

Defect Rate

Dependencies

Step Cost ($/unit)

Task Duration

days

Thresholds are saved automatically and applied to all steps in real time.

📋

Map

PFV Process Flow Worksheet

// Identify where waiting, handoffs, and rework are delaying outcomes

▶ New here? Load a sample process — the worksheet fills in instantly.

Pick a benchmark-derived sample and watch the heat map, the seven metrics, and the exposure read light up. Then edit it, or clear it and map your own.

Detection Engineering Incident Response Vulnerability Remediation ▼ or choose from all 11 in the menu below

How to use this — step by step

Step 1: Name your process and add up to 20 tasks as columns — the steps in your workflow. Step 2: For each task, score all 7 PFV metrics — cells color instantly Green / Yellow / Red. Step 3: Read the heat map to see where the biggest waits are. Step 4: In Diagnose your top waits, classify why each wait happens — capacity, batching, dependency, WIP, rework, or policy. Step 5: Review the improvement actions matched to your diagnosis. Step 6: Scroll to the Investment & Return Calculator, which models the recovery for the levers your diagnosis identified. Step 7: Export a fully formatted .xlsx with all color coding preserved.

On time units: Processing Time measures active labor effort and uses an 8-hour workday when days are entered. Queue Time measures elapsed waiting and uses a 24-hour calendar day, because risk, customer impact, and process exposure continue overnight, on weekends, and during holidays. Lead Time = Processing Time + Queue Time.

Process Owner

Date

Samples are benchmark-derived illustrations for calibrating your own entries — expect your logs to differ.

Cloud Save

⚠ Heads up: everything else on this page stays in your browser, but clicking Save Worksheet transmits your process data (task names, performers, times, defect rates, thresholds) to this site's backend (csi.dewood.org) so it can be reloaded later. Don't save data you're not comfortable storing server-side — for a purely local copy, use Export PFV .xlsx instead.

These numbers are:

● GREEN — Good / Acceptable ● YELLOW — Monitor / OK ● RED — Improve Now Thresholds from Exposure Thresholds above

⚑

Actions

Improvement Actions for Your Diagnosis

// The specific actions matched to each mechanism you diagnosed above — candidate experiments to weigh, each feeding a lever in the calculator below

◆

Investment

PFV Investment & Return Calculator

// Estimate recoverable capacity — and the cost of delay — before funding an initiative

Before the dollars — read this once

The figures behind this tab combine your unverified estimates with industry-average cost models — COPQ multipliers, Reinertsen cost-of-delay, IBM breach benchmarks. They are illustrative scenarios, not forecasts. They can rank which process to fix first; they cannot price a business case on their own. For investment-grade numbers, verify per-step times against your ticketing-system logs first — the trust ladder shows what each level of confidence can support.

Confidence has four levels

Observed · a large wait was found Hypothesized · a likely mechanism Verified · your logs confirm it Improved · the intervention produces measurable operational gains

Never take a hypothesized cause upstairs as a proven one; more than one mechanism can be true at once. The first three levels are confidence in the cause; Improved is a different claim — evidence the remedy worked. The diagnostic labels which level you are standing on.

No worksheet data — complete the Process Flow Worksheet above for best results

—

Process Parameters

Items Completed per Year items/yr — enter your own, the sample value is modelled. Same item you count as “open”, as a yearly rate; drives the cross-check & all costs

Typical Open Items optional — your own figure (the suggested number is a modelled estimate); how many are open at once on a normal day; cross-checks your queue estimate via Little’s Law

Avg. Labor Rate ($/hr) fully-loaded — enter your own, the default is a placeholder

Item Value ($) value of one delivered process cycle — for Cost of Delay calc

Annual Process Cost ($) auto from worksheet

Est. SLA Miss Rate (%) cycles breaching SLA

Risk & Exposure Assumptions

This process sits on the attacker / breach path
Off by default. Breach-risk exposure is included only for processes an attacker would actually traverse — detection, response, vulnerability remediation. For purely operational processes it stays excluded, and the case rests on cost of delay, rework, and recovered capacity.

Annual Breach Probability (%) Verizon DBIR 2024: 30%

Avg. Breach Cost ($M) IBM 2025: $4.44M

Compliance Exposure ($K/yr) regulatory risk from delays

Escalation Rate (%) % requiring senior escalation

Current State Exposure — Cost of Doing Nothing real-time

—

Annual Process Cost

—

Waste Burden

—

Queue-Time Burden

—

Rework Waste

—

Risk-Adjusted Exposure

—

Compliance & Other

Total Current-State Exposure

Annual operational + risk cost of the unimproved process

—

PFV Engagement & Improvement Levers

Participants

Rate ($/hr)

Hrs / Week

Weeks

Implementation ($) cost to capture (automation/redesign) — optional

Improvement Levers

Total Waste Recovery (%) PCE-guided: 40%

Risk Exposure Reduction (%) realized share of the window you close

Cycle-Time Reduction (%) MTTD/MTTR — populate worksheet for guidance

SLA Hit-Rate Improvement % points gained

† PCE >30% use 30–40% | PCE 15–30% use 40–50% | PCE <15% use 50–70%. Source: Reinertsen (2009).

PFV Value Realization

Investment

Labor —

Consultant Fee —

Implementation cost to capture —

Total Investment —

Return

Capacity Recovered rework / COPQ —

Risk Reduction —

Cost of Delay Reduced opportunity — not in ROI —

Predicted in Queue waiting only — Little’s Law L = λ×W —

Estimate Cross-Check your open count vs predicted open —

Reality-Checked Scenario your count, same math — ROI unchanged —

Annual Benefit —

Conservative Case (30% floor) —

—

ROI

—

Payback

—

Exposure Delta

Savings and payback are shown as point estimates by design — they inherit the 90% confidence ranges on the current-state figures above (Hubbard, How to Measure Anything).

Recovery Opportunity by Lever

1 · Reduce Waiting value-add queue —

2 · Reduce Rework rework re-entry —

3 · Eliminate Unnecessary Work flagged non-value-add —

Example recovery ranges generated by PFV from measured queue, rework & value-add flags. Shown as alternatives, not summed.

* All figures are estimates for strategic planning and budgetary purposes only. Risk figures reference IBM Cost of a Data Breach 2025 ($4.44M avg breach) and Verizon DBIR (30% probability) as defaults. Actual results depend on process complexity, team engagement, and implementation quality.

⟳

ITIL® 4

Continual Improvement Cycle

// Each turn of the cycle reduces exposure and recovers capacity

The cycle is not improvement for its own sake. Each turn drives the two outcomes a board cares about — exposure reduced while work waits, and capacity recovered from queues, rework, and unnecessary steps. The wheel is the method; exposure down and capacity back are the results.

CI
MODEL

ITIL® 4

◎

Tap a wedge
to explore the step

Full CSI details — the seven ITIL® 4 phases

ITIL 4

What Is the Vision?

// Define Green first; measure second

PFV Role

The vision defines what Green means for this process. Without it your thresholds are guesses. The VOC tells you what processing time customers will accept. The CTQ converts that into the Green / Yellow / Red limits you enter in the Exposure Thresholds below. Start here — everything else depends on it.

🎯

Voice of the Customer → Exposure Thresholds

The conversation that sets every PFV color limit

PFV: Threshold SourceSix SigmaITIL 4

▼

VOC is not a survey. It is a structured conversation with real customers — internal or external — to discover what good actually means to them. In PFV terms: what processing time is acceptable? What queue time causes them to escalate? What defect rate makes them stop trusting the output? These answers become your Green thresholds. If the customer says "I need this resolved within 4 hours" — that is your Queue Time Green limit.

Identify real customers — the people who depend on this process output. Include direct users and downstream consumers.

Ask three questions per metric: What does great look like? What is just acceptable? At what point does this become a problem for you?

Translate to CTQ limits: convert verbal responses ("same day") to measurable numbers ("≤8 hours") — these become your PFV Green thresholds.

Document the rationale in the Exposure Thresholds "Context" field — this makes the thresholds defensible in any review.

Revisit after every improvement cycle. As Green becomes the norm, raise the bar. What was Yellow last quarter should be Red next quarter.

CTQ Tree — From Need to Number

Customer Need → Quality Driver → Critical to Quality (CTQ) requirement → PFV threshold. Example: "Faster detection" → "Resolution time" → "MTTR ≤ 4 hours" → Queue Time Green = 4 hrs. This chain is what makes a threshold objective and non-negotiable.

ITIL 4

Where Are We Now?

// Fill the PFV Worksheet with real numbers — not estimates

PFV Role

This step is the PFV Worksheet. Map every task as a column. For each task, collect all seven metrics from the people who actually do the work — not from documentation. The heat map is only as honest as the data you put into it. Real numbers from the people doing the work often tell you more than months of documentation review, because they reflect what actually happens rather than what's written down.

📈

SIPOC — Define Scope Before You Map

Six Sigma — Run this before the PFV session to agree on what is in scope and what is not

PFV: Pre-MappingSix Sigma

▼

SIPOC (Suppliers, Inputs, Process, Outputs, Customers) takes 20 minutes and prevents the most common failure in process mapping: scope creep. Define the process boundaries before the session. Start and end points in SIPOC become the first and last tasks in your PFV Worksheet — the first task is what starts the process, the last is what ends it.

Element	Question	PFV Connection
Suppliers	Who provides the inputs?	Upstream handoff sources → Performer dimension
Inputs	What triggers or feeds this process?	Trigger / Input dimension → Automated, Document, or Manual
Process	What are the high-level steps?	Your task columns in the PFV Worksheet
Outputs	What does this process produce?	Output dimension per task
Customers	Who receives and depends on this output?	VOC respondents for threshold setting

🗺

Value Stream Mapping — Where PFV Gets Its Data

Toyota Production System — VSM walk reveals the real numbers behind every PFV cell

PFV: Measurement SourceLean

▼

Walk the process with the people who do the work. Ask: how long does this step actually take? How long does it sit waiting? How often does it come back with errors? These are your PFV metric inputs. VSM is not a documentation exercise — it is a data collection exercise. The map is the product. The numbers fill the worksheet.

Process Cycle Efficiency — The single most revealing ratio in any process PCE = Processing Time ÷ (Processing Time + Queue Time) × 100
World-class service processes: PCE > 30% · Typical: 5–15% · Below 5%: systemic failure
The PCE is calculated automatically — use the Investment & Return Calculator below.

The Gemba Walk — Go See

Gemba means "the real place" in Japanese. Never map a process from a conference room. Go where the work happens. Watch one end-to-end cycle. Time it yourself. The numbers you collect in person will differ dramatically from the estimates on any existing documentation — and the real numbers are what matter.

ITIL 4

Where Do We Want to Be?

// Future-state thresholds — what does all-Green look like?

PFV Role

The target state is simple: every cell Green. Use the Investment & Return Calculator to quantify what that is worth in dollars annually. That number is your improvement budget justification. Takt time — the customer demand rate — is your target for processing time. If the customer needs one output per 4 hours, that is your Green processing time ceiling. Everything above it is waste.

🎯

Takt Time & Target State — Setting the Pace

Lean — The customer's clock is the only clock that matters

PFV: Target ThresholdLeanSix Sigma

▼

Takt Time — The heartbeat of a demand-matched process Takt Time = Available work time ÷ Customer demand rate
Example: 480 min/day ÷ 120 requests/day = 4 minutes per request
If any step takes longer than Takt Time — it is Red by definition.

Target	Current State (Red)	Future State (Green)	Value
Lead Time	Weeks	Days or Hours	Customer satisfaction · SLA compliance
PCE	<10%	>30%	3× throughput without adding headcount
Defect Rate	>10%	<2%	Rework cost eliminated · COPQ reduced
Handoffs	5+	1–2	Faster delivery · Clearer accountability
Manual Triggers	Majority	None	Automation-ready · Consistent quality

Use the Investment & Return Calculator

Once your Process Flow Worksheet is complete, diagnose why your top waits happen, then scroll to the Investment & Return Calculator — it defaults the modeled improvement to the lever your diagnosis identified. Enter your hourly rate, annual volume, and estimated improvement cost. The calculator computes your current annual cost, projected savings, ROI %, and payback period — the numbers your executive needs to approve the project.

ITIL 4

How Do We Get There?

// Each Red routes to the right tool. No guessing.

PFV Role

The heat map tells you where the problem is and which dimension is Red. The routing table below maps each Red dimension to the tool that addresses it — turning a color on the heat map into a specific countermeasure.

🏃

PFV Red Routing Guide — Which Tool for Which Red

Applied to Red zones before committing improvement resources

PFV: ActionLeanSix Sigma

▼

PFV Red Dimension	Waste Type	Primary Tool	When to Use It
Queue Time Red	Waiting · Inventory	Pull System · Automation · Empowerment	Work sitting idle >50% of lead time
Processing Time Red	Over-processing · Motion	Kaizen · Standard Work · Takt Time	Step exceeds Takt Time or VOC limit
Defect Rate Red	Defects · Rework	5 Whys → Ishikawa → Poka-Yoke	Rework loop visible · Output rejected >10%
Handoffs Red	Transportation · Utilization	Cell Design · Cross-training · RACI reset	Same work passing through 4+ teams
Trigger / Input Red	Motion · Waiting	Workflow automation · API integration	Manual data entry or document hand-off
Dependencies Red	Waiting · Over-processing	KT Problem Analysis · Process redesign	3+ hard dependencies blocking progress
Cost Red	All waste types compounded	COPQ analysis · Automate Green first	Cost > 2× benchmark for this step type

✅

5S — Standardize Before You Improve

Toyota — The foundation under every other improvement tool

PFV: Processing Time RedLean

▼

You cannot improve what is not stable. 5S creates the predictable baseline from which every other tool works. In knowledge work and IT operations: Sort out unused tools and data sources, Set in order the workflows and access rights, Shine by cleaning up queues and backlogs, Standardize the process into documented procedures, Sustain through audits and PFV re-measurement.

PFV + 5S

After a 5S event, re-run the PFV Worksheet. Processing Time and Queue Time Reds typically drop 20–40% from standardization alone — before any deeper improvement is applied. This is the fastest path to Green for chaotic, undocumented processes.

🔍

Kepner-Tregoe — Solve the Right Problem

Kepner & Tregoe — Applied when the root cause of a Red is not obvious

PFV: Dependency Red · Defect RedLean

▼

KT's Problem Analysis asks four precise questions about any Red: What exactly is the problem? Where and when does it occur vs. not occur? What is distinctive about where it does occur? What changed? This distinction analysis cuts through opinion and surfaces the actual cause — preventing the most expensive error in improvement work: solving the wrong problem with the right tool.

What it is — Describe the specific Red metric, step, and dimension precisely.

IS NOT

What it is not — Where does this Red not appear? The boundary defines the cause.

DISTINCT

What is distinctive about the IS vs. the IS NOT? This is where the cause hides.

CHANGE

What changed in or around the distinctive feature? That change is your probable cause.

❓

5 Whys — Fast Root Cause for Clear Reds

Taiichi Ohno, Toyota — Ask why until the countermeasure becomes obvious

PFV: Defect Red · Queue RedLean

▼

For straightforward Reds where the symptom is clear, five iterations of "why" reliably reaches the root cause. The key discipline: each answer must be falsifiable — you should be able to verify it with PFV data. Stop when the answer points to a systemic cause you can fix, not a person you can blame.

When to Use 5 Whys vs. KT

Use 5 Whys when the Red is recent, the symptom is specific, and the team agrees on what they observed. Use KT when the Red is persistent, the team disagrees on causes, or previous fixes did not hold. When in doubt: KT.

🏹

Ishikawa Fishbone — Team Root Cause for Complex Reds

Kaoru Ishikawa — Structured brainstorm that surfaces causes 5 Whys misses

PFV: Defect Red · Multi-dimension RedSix Sigma

▼

Write the specific Red PFV metric at the fish head. Draw six bones: Methods, Machines, Materials, People, Environment, Measurement. Brainstorm causes per category. The categories prevent the team from fixating on the obvious and missing the systemic. Validate top candidates with your PFV metric data history before committing to a fix.

⚙ Methods

Bad procedures → Processing Time Red or Defect Red

💻 Machines

Tool failures, latency → Queue Time Red or Trigger Red

📦 Materials

Poor input quality → Trigger Red or Defect Red

👤 People

Skill gaps → Defect Red or Handoff Red

🌍 Environment

Culture, workload → Queue Red or Dependency Red

📊 Measurement

Bad data → wrong thresholds → false Green signals

🚪

8 Wastes — Every Red Has a Name

Taiichi Ohno, Toyota — Naming the waste is the first step to eliminating it

PFV: All DimensionsLean

▼

Most PFV Reds map to one of eight waste types. The heat map shows where. The 8 Wastes name what type. Naming it precisely determines the countermeasure.

Waste	PFV Signal	Modern Countermeasure
Waiting	Queue Time Red — most common	Pull systems · Automated approvals · SOAR triggers
Over-processing	Processing Time Red	Standard work · Takt time · AI-assisted triage
Defects	Defect Rate Red	Poka-Yoke · Input validation · ML anomaly detection
Transportation	Handoffs Red	Cross-functional teams · Single-queue models
Motion	Trigger Red · Processing Time Red	Workflow automation · Context-aware tooling
Inventory	Queue Time Red — backlogs	WIP limits · Kanban · Queue-time SLAs
Over-production	Processing Time Red (hidden)	Pull not push · On-demand generation
Underutilization	Handoffs Red · Performer	Skill-mapping · Automation of L1 tasks

⚠

FMEA — Pre-flight Check Before Any Fix

Six Sigma — Prevents the fix from creating three new Reds

PFV: Pre-ImplementationSix Sigma

▼

Before implementing any fix to a Red zone, ask: what could this fix break? FMEA scores each failure mode by Severity × Occurrence × Detection = RPN. Fix high-RPN items first. This prevents the most common implementation failure: trading one Red for three new ones.

Risk Priority Number RPN = Severity (1–10) × Occurrence (1–10) × Detection (1–10)
RPN > 200: block implementation until mitigated
After fix: re-score and confirm PFV metrics moved Green

5·6

ITIL 4

Take Action & Validate

// PFV metrics confirm the fix. No politics.

PFV Role

Implement the fix using ITIL 4 Change Enablement. Then re-run the PFV Worksheet on the improved process. If the Red cell is now Green, the improvement is confirmed. If not, the map shows exactly what remains to fix. No opinion. No politics. Just the data. This is where PFV earns its reputation.

✅

Change Enablement → Validate → Continual Improvement Register

ITIL 4 — The formal close of every PFV improvement cycle

PFV: Post-Fix ValidationITIL 4Six Sigma

▼

Change Enablement — Log the improvement as a change. Define rollback criteria. Communicate to affected teams. Implement with a go-live date and a monitoring window.

PFV Re-measurement — Collect the same 7 metrics on the improved step after 2–4 weeks of operation. Use real data, not estimates. The heat map is the verdict.

Confirm the Green — If the target metric is now within the Green threshold: document it, broadcast the result, and update the Continual Improvement Register. If not: do not close the item. Return to Step 4.

Raise the threshold — Once Green is stable, tighten the Green threshold. What was Yellow last quarter becomes Red next quarter. Continuous improvement means the bar always rises.

CIR update — Log the KVI / KPI improvement achieved, the cost savings realized, and the ROI against the original estimate. This is the evidence portfolio for the next improvement budget request.

KVI — Key Value Indicators

ITIL 4 distinguishes KPIs (operational performance) from KVIs (value delivered to customers and the business). Always report both. Reducing queue time from 10 days to 2 days is a KPI. Delivering 5× more throughput with the same headcount is the KVI. Executives fund KVIs.

ITIL 4

Maintain Momentum

// Improvement that stops becomes expensive documentation

PFV Role

Schedule the next PFV session before you close this one. Set a 90-day re-measurement date. Assign a PFV champion. The goal is not a one-time heat map — it is a living operational standard where Green thresholds rise every cycle and Red zones become rarer every quarter.

📈

Sustaining the Gain — The 90-Day Cadence

Kaizen · ITIL 4 — Momentum is a discipline, not a feeling

PFV: OngoingITIL 4Lean

▼

Cadence	Activity	PFV Action
Day 30	Early validation check	Spot-check the fixed Red metrics · Confirm trend is Green
Day 90	Full PFV re-run	Re-fill the worksheet · New heat map · New routing decisions
Day 90	Threshold review	Tighten Green limits where stable · Yellow becomes new Red
Quarterly	CIR business review	Present KVI progress · Cost savings realized · Next cycle approved
Annually	Strategic alignment	Map PFV results to organizational OKRs · Expand to adjacent processes

The Automation Graduation Path

Green steps that have been stable for two consecutive 90-day cycles are automation candidates. Use this sequence: Standard Work documented → Manual process reliable and Green → Automate → Re-run PFV to confirm automation did not create new Reds. It is a defensible sequence for durable automation — with PFV as the gate at each stage.

Find Anything

Search This Site

Jump to any tool, framework step, or method — runs entirely in your browser.

⚿ Security Posture — Built for a Security Audience

The worksheet runs entirely in your browser. Calculations never touch a server. Nothing you type is transmitted unless you click Save, Load, or cloud Export — and those requests go only to this same origin (csi.dewood.org). No third-party analytics, ad, or tracking scripts load on this site.

✓ CSP script-src 'self' — no inline JS, no eval, no CDN code
✓ Every script self-hosted; spreadsheet lib pinned with an SRI sha384 hash
✓ HSTS preload · X-Frame-Options DENY · nosniff
✓ object-src 'none' · frame-ancestors 'none' · base-uri 'self'

Don't trust me — prove it yourself

Independent checks you can run in under a minute, no permission needed:

1. Headers / CSP grade: scan csi.dewood.org at securityheaders.com and Mozilla Observatory (observatory.mozilla.org).

2. What actually loads: open DevTools → Network tab, hard-reload, and confirm every request is same-origin (plus Google Fonts for type only).

3. No silent calls: watch the Network tab while you fill the worksheet — zero requests fire until you click Save/Load/Export.

4. Script integrity: View Source → the SheetJS tag carries an integrity="sha384-…" attribute; the browser refuses to run it if a byte is altered.

5. TLS: check the certificate and protocol at SSL Labs (ssllabs.com/ssltest).

Want to go deeper? Use it offline: save the page (or load over a throttled/blocked connection) and the worksheet still computes — proof the math is local.