CLD Narrative
The Causal Loop Diagram (CLD) explains how the six variables identified in the ID interact to keep the CBOT high.
The first reinforcing loop (R1) is the Policy–Communication Loop. When clarity of policies and prioritisation rules is low, communication, planning and transparency are reduced. This creates uncertainty, more follow-ups and escalations, which increase dependency on key individuals and workload pressures. Higher workload then further reduces the capacity for communication and planning, reinforcing the loop.
The second reinforcing loop (R2) is the Submission Quality–Complexity Loop. Lower quality and inconsistent programme submissions result in more queries, revisions and resubmissions. This increases the complexity of the approval process and the number of stakeholders involved. Greater complexity creates additional delays and pressure, which further reduces submission quality and reinforces the loop (QA Specialist telephonic interview, 2026; Focus Group transcript, 2026).
The third reinforcing loop (R3) is the Complexity–Dependency–System Efficiency Loop. As the complexity of the approval process increases, dependency on a few key individuals and workload pressures increase. Higher dependency and workload reduce system integration and SIS code creation efficiency. Lower efficiency contributes to longer turnaround times and greater process complexity, reinforcing the loop.
The balancing loop (B1) represents existing efforts to control turnaround times through planning, follow-ups, escalation processes and the internal SCRS panel. However, the evidence suggests that unclear prioritisation rules, communication gaps and inconsistent submission practices limit the effectiveness of these efforts (SAPPO Survey, 2026).
Amended CLD Narrative (Aligned to the ID)
The amended CLD shows how the proposed interventions are integrated into the original system structure.
Intervention 1, the prioritisation guideline, strengthens the clarity of policies and prioritisation rules. Intervention 2, the shared status tracking tool and weekly check-ins, improves communication, planning and transparency. Intervention 3, the standard programme submission checklist, improves the quality and consistency of programme submissions and quality assurance criteria. Intervention 4, the SIS code creation Service Level Agreement (SLA), strengthens system integration and SIS code creation efficiency. Intervention 5 introduces a formal review and feedback process that supports continuous monitoring, learning and improvement across the system.
Together, these interventions strengthen the three main drivers identified in the ID and reduce the negative effects created by the reinforcing loops. Improved policy clarity strengthens communication and planning, while better submission quality reduces approval complexity and rework. Improved SIS code creation efficiency reduces workload pressures and dependency on key individuals. As a result, the reinforcing loops (R1, R2 and R3) are weakened and the balancing loop (B1) is strengthened, supporting a reduction in turnaround times and moving the system closer to the 4–6-week turnaround guideline.
