Information Flow Map — Achieve Australia

Consolidates confirmed data flows across all four feedback-loop deep dives into one cross-system view. Systems as nodes, data flows as edges, breaks marked where the loop doesn't close — the relationship column in the original 251-point data taxonomy tried to capture this as text in a table cell, which is why it collapsed into one repeated sentence on 243 of 251 rows. A network doesn't fit in a cell.

Systems mapped

HubSpot, MS Dynamics, VisiCase, Connect, QuickClaim/PRODA, Business Central, Power BI, CI Register, OCG portal, Commission, Excel

Recurring break pattern

Same four break types recur regardless of category — see below

Competing sources of truth

HubSpot / MS Dynamics / VisiCase all separately claim the client record, no deprecation marker between them

Categories not yet mapped

Clinical Information, Workforce, Rostering, Quality & Experience beyond one data point

Master systems diagram — confirmed flows only

flowchart LR
    HubSpot["HubSpot
(enquiry CRM — 'one source
of truth' per Sales Guide 08/23)"]
    MSD["MS Dynamics
(ERP / debtor records —
conditional integration)"]
    VC["VisiCase
(legacy case management,
incidents, SOS/budget)"]
    Connect["Connect
(live 2 Jun 2026, SIL/accommodation;
Day Programs/Respite scope TBC)"]
    QC["QuickClaim / PRODA
(service bookings, claims)"]
    BC["Business Central
(GL, invoicing)"]
    PBI["Power BI
(incident analysis, finance dashboards)"]
    CIReg["CI Register
(standalone Excel workbook)"]
    OCG["OCG portal
(statutory notification)"]
    Comm["NDIS Quality &
Safeguards Commission"]
    Excel["Excel
(connective tissue —
no direct integration anywhere)"]

    HubSpot -->|"enquiry → client record
(CONDITIONAL: Integration? Y/N gateway)"| MSD
    HubSpot -->|"client record"| VC
    MSD -->|"debtor status
(CONDITIONAL — manual email fallback if 'No')"| BC
    VC -->|"SOS draft/budget
(SOS is PDF, not searchable —
manual re-keying required)"| QC
    QC -->|"activity report vs bulk upload
(manual cross-check in Excel)"| BC
    BC -.->|"BREAK: reconciliation step
'Role TBC' / 'OLD MAP'"| VC
    VC -->|"incident report export (CSV)"| PBI
    PBI -.->|"BREAK: 'Share Any Information
and Lessons' — no linked destination"| VC
    VC -->|"CEO-notifiable / statutory reports"| OCG
    VC -->|"24hr + 5-day reports,
GM review required"| Comm
    Comm -.->|"BREAK: response received,
no documented internal home"| VC
    VC -->|"goal tracking → CSV export"| Excel
    Excel -.->|"BREAK: emailed report,
no documented destination"| CIReg
    VC -->|"CI entries from incident review
(evidenced: IMP000320, IMP000343)"| CIReg
    CIReg -.->|"BREAK: no theme/pattern
aggregation across entries"| PBI
    Connect -.->|"payroll bug 15 Jun 2026,
manual workaround —
migration scope beyond SIL unconfirmed"| VC

    classDef gap stroke:#b3352f,stroke-width:2px,stroke-dasharray: 5 5;
    class BC,PBI,Comm,Excel gap

What this diagram shows that a flat list couldn't

1. The same four breaks recur across every loop, regardless of category

A step marked "not mapped" or "Role TBC" — funding reconciliation, incident-to-practice feedback, service delivery in the client lifecycle.
A manual Excel step standing in for a missing system integration — billing cross-check, goal-tracking export, SOS drafting.
Data that reaches a system but has no confirmed onward destination — CI register entries, incident analysis output, goal reports.
A conditional integration gateway ("Integration? Yes/No") where the manual fallback branch fires at an unknown, unmeasured rate.

This is the structural finding the exec summary already names: forward flow (capture → process → close) is well-designed everywhere; feedback flow (learning, aggregation, reconciliation) is what's missing everywhere. A per-row relationship column could never surface this — it only becomes visible once the flows are drawn as one connected diagram.

2. The same data point has more than one plausible source of truth

HubSpot vs MS Dynamics vs VisiCase for the client record is the clearest example — three governing documents (Sales Guide 08/23, Client Entry Procedure 05/2024, the 01.0x To-Be library 11/2025) each describe a different system as authoritative, with no deprecation marker between them. A flat data dictionary would hide this — each row would just say "confirmed" against whichever document happened to be checked. A flow diagram exposes it immediately: the same node has three different incoming arrows making the same claim.

3. What Connect actually changed is still mostly unknown

Connect only touches the SIL/accommodation edges of this diagram so far (go-live 2 Jun 2026); Day Programs and Respite migration scope isn't documented, and even within SIL, whether Connect's "redesigned incident management system" has replaced the VisiCase-era 02.0x process flows above is unconfirmed. Any version of this diagram drawn after Connect's Day Programs/Respite rollout will need re-validating, not just relabelling.

Not yet mapped

Scope limit

This diagram only covers what the funding, incident, CI register, and client lifecycle loops evidenced. It does not yet cover data flows for Clinical Information (medications, PRN, clinical alerts, hospital history), Workforce (screening/WWCC/competency records, supervision), Rostering (how RosterOn connects to VisiCase/Connect shift data and Micropay payroll), or Quality & Experience beyond the single evidenced mealtime-plan data point.

Recommend these become the next round of interview questions, framed the same way as the confirmed flows above (system → system, not point → point), so the resulting diagram stays a true systems map rather than reverting to a checklist.

Sources used

No new source documents were reviewed to produce this page — it restructures existing evidence into a systems-flow view rather than a data-point list.