Title: FY02 ASA Presentation Ensure Integrity of NIH Facilities
1FY02 ASA Presentation Ensure Integrity of NIH
Facilities
- Presented by
- Mehryar Ebrahimi
- Office of Research Services
- National Institutes of Health
- 18 November 2002
2Table of Contents
- Main Presentation
- ASA Template ..4
- Customer Perspective..6
- Customer Segmentation .8
- Customer Satisfaction..10
- Internal Business Process Perspective
.12 - Service Group Block Diagram.13
- Conclusions from Discrete Services Deployment
Flowcharts14 - Process Measures.15
- Learning and Growth Perspective...
21 - Conclusions from Turnover, Sick Leave, Awards,
EEO/ER/ADR Data.23 - Analysis of Readiness Conclusions
24 - Financial Perspective...25
- Unit Cost..26
- Asset Utilization..28
- Conclusions and Recommendations..
34 - Conclusions from FY02 ASA...35
- Recommendations.37
3Table of Contents
- Appendices
- Page 2 of your ASA Template
- Customer survey results and graphs
- Process maps
- Learning and Growth graphs
4(No Transcript)
5Discrete Services
- We propose some slight changes in wording of the
Discrete Services as follows - Old DS1 Ensure campus infrastructure integrity
- New DS1 Ensure Integrity of Campus Utility
Infrastructure - Old DS2 Ensure building and building system
integrity - New DS2 Ensure Integrity of Buildings Utility
Infrastructure
6Customer Perspective
7WHO IS THE CUSTOMER?
- A key point to be made is that the team concluded
that our primary customer is PWB for both of
these discrete services. - Of course PWBs primary customers are the ICs
who are the ultimate recipient of the utility
services.
8Customer Segmentation
- DS1 Ensure Integrity of Campus Utility
Infrastructure - Our customers represent the majority of
supervisors and managers and employees working
within Central Utilities Section of PWB
Total Population 64 Total Customers 15
9Customer Segmentation
- DS2 Ensure Integrity of Campus Building Utility
Infrastructure - Our customers represent a portion of supervisors,
managers, and other employees within Building
Maintenance Sections of PWB
Total Population 222 Total Customers 12
10Customer Satisfaction
- We sent out 27 customer surveys to our customer
target population, however we did not receive a
very high response rate. - At this time, due to low response, we cannot make
any objective conclusions regarding our survey on
DS-2 dealing with the Building Utilities
Integrity. - We have looked at the comments and the Scatter
Diagram for Discrete Service 1 Ensure the
Integrity of Campus Utility Infrastructure, and
we will be focusing on those areas that rated
high on level of importance and low on
satisfaction. - We plan to monitor customer satisfaction and
participation rates throughout the year during
FY03.
11Scatter Diagram For DS-2Insure Campus
IntegrityFY02 Customer Importance and
Satisfaction Ratings A Closer Look
Note A smaller portion of the chart is shown
so that the individual data points can be labeled.
12Internal Business Process Perspective
13Service Group Block Diagram
- Ensure Integrity of Campus Utilities
Infrastructure and Ensure Integrity of Campus
Building Infrastructure consumes approximately
25 of the project officers time in DCAB. Our
primary interface points are with Perform
Facilities Maintenance and Operations and
Provide Facilities Management Services
14Conclusions from Discrete Services Deployment
Flowcharts
- Our Service Group completed 2 deployment
flowcharts for 2 discrete services - Based on the deployment flow charts that we
created and analyzed, we believe that we need to
increase the involvement of our customers (PWB)
and ensure that we receive, and utilize their
comments during Planning, Design, Construction
and Closeout.
15Process Measures
- Process measures for each discrete service
- DS1 Percent of Projects impacting Campus
Utilities vs. the number submitted to PWB for
review at different stages. - DS1 Percent of Projects submitted for review to
PWB vs. the number of reviews returned to DCAB
and their timeliness - DS2 Percent of Projects impacting Building
Utilities vs. the number submitted to PWB for
review at different stages. - DS2 Percent of Projects submitted for review to
PWB vs. the the number of reviews returned to
DCAB and their timeliness - DS-2 Building 10 utility infrastructure team
(DCAB Team 7) has established process measures
that includes tracking of activities performed by
this team. It is important to note that this
team takes the lead in coordinating projects with
PWB and incorporating their comments specially
during pre-design and design activities.
16Process Map for Ensuring Building Utility
Integrity
17Process Map for Ensuring Building Utility
Integrity Cont
Note there is little to no involvement from PWB
after completion of the design
18Process Measures
- Other than Building 10 utility infrastructure
tracking which is done by Team 7 of DCAB, we did
not implement any of these proposed unique
process measures for FY02 however, we will be
implementing the above measures for FY03 in
cooperation with PWB.
19Process MeasuresBuilding 10 Utilities
Infrastructure Group (DCAB Team 7)
20Process MeasuresBuilding 10 Utilities
Infrastructure Group (DCAB Team 7)
21Learning and Growth Perspective
22Summary of L G Datafor Service Group 34
- Services provided by this service group is a part
of a greater function performed by DCAB.
Therefore, the LG for the DCAB is presented
here. - 3 employee turnover
- Over 1 award per employee
- About 4 days of sick leave per employee
- 0 EEO complaints, 2 ER and 5 ADR cases out of 111
employees
23Conclusions from Turnover, Sick Leave, Awards,
EEO/ER/ADR Data
- Based on the feedback from the Learning and
growth data provided, we found that our turnover
rate, sick leave rate, and EEO/ER/ADR rates were
below average when compared to other discrete
services. We were a little above average on the
number of awards received by our employees. Since
this is the first year we have examined this data
in this way, we will have better comparative data
at the end of FY03. - In general, data indicates DCAB is good place to
work.
24Analysis of Readiness Conclusions
- We feel that our staff is fully qualified to
perform the work related to our discrete services
now and into the foreseeable future. We do,
however, need to monitor the early planning
process and forecasts for new construction and
alterations. A sudden increase in work load in
these areas will have an immediate impact on our
ability to spend sufficient time investigating
condition of the existing utilities
infrastructure and their future planning.
25Financial Perspective
26Unit Cost Measures
- Unit cost for DS1 Ensure Integrity of Campus
Utility Infrastructure - Per square foot cost of providing this discrete
service was calculated using the budget included
in the rent model divided by the total gross
square feet of the campus buildings.
27Unit Cost Measures Cont
- Unit cost for DS2 Ensure Integrity of Building
Utilities Infrastructure - Per square foot cost of providing this discrete
service was calculated using the budget included
in the rent model divided by the total gross
square feet of campus buildings.
28Asset Utilization Measures
- There are two separate ORS accounts for Campus
and Building Integrity services as follows - Campus Utility Infrastructure (HQF10017)
- Building Utility Infrastructure (HQF10000)
- Asset utilization was evaluated using the time
cards from DCAB and comparing it with the
allotted budget for each Discrete Service.
29Budget increase of 4 in 02 vs. 01 DCAB charges
increased by 40 in 02 vs. 01
30Budget increase of 2.5 in 02 vs. 01 DCAB charges
increased by 7 in 02 vs. 01
31(No Transcript)
32Over 30 of POs are not charging to the ORS
account on Building Integrity although they
provide the service.
33Conclusion for Asset Utilization
- Based on the study of the actual time charged
against the ORS account for Ensure Integrity of
Campus and Building Utilities, it is clear that
there is a need for additional training regarding
use of the ORS account for these discrete
services as there are many POs who do not charge
any time to these accounts and provide the
service. - Considering deficient utility infrastructure of
Building 10, we anticipated higher than average
POs time to be charged against the ORS account.
Evaluating the time charged by DCAB Teams 1, 6,
7 revealed that approx 20 of the total time on
the ORS building infrastructure account was
charged for building 10 whereas this building
constitutes 30 of the campus total square feet.
Paul Hawver who leads the Building 10
infrastructure group, indicated there are
services provided by consultants that have not
been captured but are being considered for
inclusion in FY03 and will be charged against the
Building Integrity account.
34Conclusions and Recommendations
35Conclusions from FY02 ASA
- The following are observations from of the Radar
Charts and the comments from surveys (PWB) for
the Ensure Campus Integrity discrete service - Quality, Cost, Competence, Reliability, and
Availability were rated above average with
Quality and Competence being the highest ranked. - Timeliness, Responsiveness, Handling of Problems
and Convenience were rated below average with
Timeliness being the lowest ranked.
36Conclusions from FY02 ASA
- The following are conclusions from the comments
provided in the surveys - What was done particularly well
- Communication
- Construction of Tunnel (Reliability, Safety,
maintenance) - What needs to be improved
- Timeliness
- Training
- Coordination
- Closeout
- More involvement during Inspection, Commissioning
and Acceptance - Involvement in all levels of discussions
affecting the utilities - PWB is the customer
- Beneficial occupancy dates should be agreed to by
customers (PWB)
37Recommendations
- Identify PWB as a customer in DCABs ISO 9000
procedure manual. This would require PWBs
involvement in all aspects of the project
specifically sign off requirement at 35 Design
and Construction closeout. (Action by DCAB)
38Recommendations Cont
- Establish a tracking system to monitor projects
that impact the campus or building utilities
infrastructure and include the following as a
minimum (Action by DCAB and PWB management) - For each project identify if there is impact on
the utilities, both campus and building
utilities, during planning (Existing system -
PIN). - Provide automatic Notification to the PWB central
point of contact of the utility impacts and the
design / construction schedule. - PWB and/or DCAB monitoring system needs to be
established to assure projects that are
identified for utility impact are submitted for
PWB reviews at planning, design, construction and
closeout. Also PWBs reviews are done in a
timely manner and returned to DCAB.
39Recommendations Cont
- DCAB Project Officers need to better track their
time spent on the utilities infrastructure for
both campus and building utility categories in
their time cards. Additional training is needed.
(Action by DCAB management)
40Recommendations Cont
- Building 10 complex utility infrastructure team
(DCAB Team 7) led by Paul Hawver is currently
providing review and coordination services to
DCAB project officers on all projects that have
utility impact in Building 10. Continue with the
service and assure all associated costs are
charged against the ORS Building Utilities
Infrastructure account. Recommend adding same
type of service for all other buildings on the
campus either by PWB or DCAB. (Decision by DES
management as to which branch should provide this
service as this will require dedicated manpower). - The two Discrete Services studied under this
service group category, should become a part of
the larger DCAB service group. (Decision by DCAB
management).
41Appendices
42Appendices
- Page 2 of ASA Template
- Customer segments graphs
- Customer satisfaction graphs
- Block diagram
- Process maps
- Process measure graphs
- Learning and Growth graphs
- Analysis of Readiness Information
- Unit cost graphs
- Asset utilization graphs
43Page 2 of Revised Template
44Customer Survey Results
- DS1 Ensure Integrity of Campus Utility
Infrastructure
45Radar ChartFY02 Product/Service Satisfaction
Ratings
Note The rating scale ranges from 1 - 10 where
1 represents Unsatisfactory and 10 represents
Outstanding. Refer to the Data Analysis and
Graphing training for advice on interpreting
these results.
46Radar ChartFY02 Customer Service Satisfaction
Ratings
Note The rating scale ranges from 1 - 10 where
1 represents Unsatisfactory and 10 represents
Outstanding. Refer to the Data Analysis and
Graphing training for advice on interpreting
these results.
47Scatter DiagramFY02 Customer Importance and
Satisfaction Ratings
Note The Importance rating scale ranges from 1
- 10 where 1 represents Unimportant and 10
represents Important. The Satisfaction rating
scale ranges from 1 - 10 where 1 represents
Unsatisfactory and 10 represents Outstanding.
48Scatter DiagramFY02 Customer Importance and
Satisfaction Ratings A Closer Look
Note A smaller portion of the chart is shown
so that the individual data points can be labeled.
49Reviewing Comments
- Realize comments are qualitative data and are not
meant to be counted and tallied - Comments provide a different type of information
from your customers regarding their satisfaction - Comments are NOT representative of the
perceptions of all your customers - Review them but dont over react to an individual
comment - Comments are a great source for ideas on how to
improve
50What was done particularly well?
- Nothing comes to mind.
- Nothing was done particularly well the quality of
the material was not the best they do not make
the repairs to the equipment in a timely manner. - Communication.
- Can say very little.
- Can't think of anything.
- The Construction of the Utility Tunnel Expansion
Project improves the reliability of the
steam/condensate pump return, chilled water and
domestic water distribution systems. It also
provides our operating personnel safe working
conditions, adequate space and accessibility to
perform maintenance and repairs of the systems.
51What needs to be improved?
- Operator and maintenance training, fixing
deficiencies, follow up on warranty work,
customer concurrence on change orders/deletions/ad
dition to contract. - They need to fix the things that are leaking and
finish the punch list that they started on but
stopped it seams that they are just waiting to
see if we will do the work ourselves. - Attention to detail, alternative solutions,
fiscal responsibility, timeliness, bring project
to closure. - Working relationship between DCAB and PWB. PWB
is also DCAB's customer (internal). - All of the above.
- Training, O M Manuals, dust control, monitoring
contractor activities, close out of contract,
warranty items, final acceptance. - Improvements are needed in the areas of
coordination, inspection, commissioning and
acceptance of the project involving new
construction or repair of utility distribution
systems. Personnel from Central Utilities
Section (CUS) should be involved and included in
all level of discussion affecting the Utilities.
52Other Comments
- DCAB needs to get costumer concurrence on changes
to contract. Beneficial occupancy date should be
agreed to by costumer. - I THINK YOU NEED TO GET MORE INPUT FROM THE
PEOPLE IN CHARGE OF THE PLANT TO SEE WHAT THEY
NEED IN HERE NOT JUST WHAT THE DESIGNERS WANT TO
PUT IN HERE THE MEN THAT RUN THE PLANT KNOWS WHAT
THEY NEED TO DO THE JOB - Please give me a call if this survey is for real
then would give comments. Jim Powers 451-4478
Asst Chief Cup - Central Utilities Section should have the
signatory authority in the commissioning and
final acceptance on all the projects relating to
Utility Distribution Systems.
53Customer Survey Results
- DS2 Ensure Integrity of Campus Building Utility
Infrastructure
54Radar ChartFY02 Product/Service Satisfaction
Ratings
Note The rating scale ranges from 1 - 10 where
1 represents Unsatisfactory and 10 represents
Outstanding. Refer to the Data Analysis and
Graphing training for advice on interpreting
these results.
55Radar ChartFY02 Customer Service Satisfaction
Ratings
Note The rating scale ranges from 1 - 10 where
1 represents Unsatisfactory and 10 represents
Outstanding. Refer to the Data Analysis and
Graphing training for advice on interpreting
these results.
56Scatter DiagramFY02 Customer Importance and
Satisfaction Ratings
Note The Importance rating scale ranges from 1
- 10 where 1 represents Unimportant and 10
represents Important. The Satisfaction rating
scale ranges from 1 - 10 where 1 represents
Unsatisfactory and 10 represents Outstanding.
57Scatter DiagramFY02 Customer Importance and
Satisfaction Ratings A Closer Look
Note A smaller portion of the chart is shown
so that the individual data points can be labeled.
58What needs to be improved?
- Differential pressure of around 10 to 12 psig
should be maintained all the time. There are
still many bldg. Groups that don't have the
tertiary pumping system installed are dependent
on the differential pressure being maintained. - The fee for service associated with the planning
needs to be reduced and the time it takes to
complete projects needs to be shortened.
59Other Comments
- I don't know that the high pressure air has been
included in this project but there are some
existing problems with this utility. Most
buildings do not receive the 100 psig air from
the plant as they did in the past. A minimum of
100 psig air is needed for lab and cage wash
equipment. Bldg 37 is having a compressor
installed just for this equipment. Bldg 36
researchers have also inquired about the lower
pressure being supplied to the bldg.
60Process Map for DS1 (page 1 of 2)
61Process Map for DS1 (page 2 of 2)
62Process Map for DS2 (Page 1 of 2)
63Process Map for DS2 (Page 2 of 2)
64 FY02 Learning and Growth (LG) Data for the
Annual Self Assessments Service Group 34
Ensure Integrity of NIH Facilities 10
October 2002 Summary Prepared by the Office of
Quality Management
65Methodology
- All data represent occurrences from Oct 2001 -
June 2002 - Data analyzed covered period between October 1st
and end of June to provide time to analyze and
present the data - ORS Human Resources (HR) provided data on
- Turnover
- Sick leave
- Awards
- HR data stored in NIH databases by Standard
Administrative Codes (SACs) - Developed cross-reference of ORS Service Groups
to SACs - Almost all SACs assigned to Service Groups
- Some Service Groups have identical SACs
- In this case, two Service Groups will receive
same set of data
66Methodology (cont.)
- Also obtained data from
- Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO)
- Number of EEO complaints
- Employee Relations (ER)
- Number of ER cases
- Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
- ADR cases
67Interpreting Your Data
- FY02 is the first time LG data were collected
and analyzed - Compare your Service Group relative to the other
ORS Service Groups - What are all the LG indicators telling you?
- In the future your group should compare itself to
its own Service Group data over time - Interpret data in terms of other ASA data
- Customer satisfaction ratings
- Process measures
- Financial measures
- Does the LG data, when compared to data in other
perspectives, show potential relationship (could
LG be contributing to customer satisfaction
results)? - From reviewing your Service Groups LG data,
what could be done to improve Quality of Work
Life (QOWL)?
68Service Group Turnover Rate
- Calculated as the number of separations for a
Service Group / Population of Service Group - Separations defined as
- Retirements (separation codes 3010, 3020, 3022)
- Resignations (separation codes 3120, 3170)
- Removals (separation codes 3300)
- Terminations (separation codes 3520, 3550, 3570)
- Promotions to new organization (separation codes
7020) - Reassignments (separation code 7210)
- Note that transfers/promotions within ORS
Divisions/Offices are not captured by the NIH
database
69Service Group Turnover Rate (cont.)
- Calculation of Service Group population was
needed since number of employees changes over
time - Population for Service Group was estimated based
on average of employee count at three snapshots
in time (Nov 2001, Feb 2002, June 2002)
70Service Group Turnover Rate (Oct 2001 - June
2002)
Turnover Rate
Service Group Number
71Average Hours of Sick Leave Used
- Calculated as the total number of sick leave
hours used for a Service Group / Population of
Service Group
72Average Hours of Sick Leave Used (Oct 2001 - June
2002)
Average Hours
Service Group Number
73Average Number of Awards Received
- Calculated as the total number of awards received
/ Population of Service Group - Includes both monetary and non-monetary awards
- Cash awards
- QSIs
- Time-off
- Honorary
- Customer Service
74Average Number of Awards Received (Oct 2001 -
June 2002)
Average number
Service Group Number
75Average Number of EEO Complaints
- Calculated the total number of EEO complaints for
a Service Group / Population of Service Group -
76Average Number of EEO Complaints (Oct 2001 -
June 2002)
Average Number
Service Group Number
77Average Number of ER Cases
- Calculated the total number of ER cases for a
Service Group / Population of Service Group - Case is defined as any contact with ER Office
where an action occurs (e.g., Letter is prepared)
78Average Number of ER Cases (Oct 2001 - June 2002)
Average Number
Service Group Number
79Average Number of ADR Cases
- Calculated the number of ADR cases for a Service
Group / Population of Service Group - Case is initiated when person contacts ADR
80Average Number of ADR Cases (Oct 2001 - June
2002)
Average Number
Service Group Number
81Learning and Growth Data Table
- 3 Employee Turnover
- About 4 days of sick leave
- per employee
- Over 1 award per employee
- 0 EEO complaints, 2 ER
- and 5 ADR cases out of 111
- employees
82Summary of Service Group 34 Learning and Growth
Data
- 3 employee turnover
- Over 1 award per employee
- About 4 days of sick leave per employee
- 0 EEO complaints, 2 ER and 5 ADR cases out of 111
employees