FY02 ASA Presentation Environmental Protection Branch

1
FY02 ASA Presentation Environmental Protection
Branch

• Presented by
• Don Wilson
• Division of Safety
• National Institutes of Health
• 18 November 2002

2
Table of Contents

• Main Presentation
• ASA Template ..4
• Customer Perspective..5-6
• Customer Segmentation ....7-11
  
• Customer Satisfaction...12-19
  
• Internal Business Process Perspective
  20
• Service Group Block Diagram21
• Conclusions from Discrete Services Deployment
  Flowcharts..22
• Process Measures.23-38
• Learning and Growth Perspective.39
  
• Conclusions from Turnover, Sick Leave, Awards,
  EEO/ER/ADR Data...40
• Analysis of Readiness Conclusions
  ..41
• Financial Perspective..42
• Unit Cost..43-48
• Asset Utilization49
• Conclusions and Recommendations.50
• Conclusions from FY02 ASA....51-
  52
• Recommendations53

3
Table of Contents

• Appendices
• Page 2-3 of your ASA Template
• Customer satisfaction graphs
• Block diagram
• Process maps
• Learning and Growth graphs
• Analysis of Readiness Information

4
(No Transcript)
5
Customer Perspective
6
Customer PerspectiveEPB WMS Services Overview

• Recycling, solid and medical waste services
  provided under one Performance Based Contract.
  Contract services from Bldg 25 operations center
  with approximately 30 contractor employees.
• Hazardous waste services provided under Chem/Rad
  Contact. Services provided from Bldg 21 and 26T
  operations center with 23 contractor employees
  on-site.
• All operations must comply with applicable
  license, permits and regulations.

7
Customer Segmentation
Environmental Protection Branch Waste Management
Section

• Chemical Waste

• Recycling

• Medical/
• Pathological Waste

• Solid Waste

8
Customer Segmentation DS1,2,4

• Customer Segmentation Charts are same for
  Discrete Services 1 (Recycling), 2 (Solid Waste),
  and 4 (Medical Waste).
• These 3 services are performed by collecting
  waste or recyclables from either loading docks,
  cold boxes,or containers in corridors or at
  outside locations.
• Segmentation based on assigned Institute square
  footage within on-site buildings.
• Largest Customers ORS (18), CC (17), NCI
  (10), NLM (8)

9
DS 1, DS 2, DS 4 - Customer Segmentation
NIH Campus Institutes Serviced in Square Footage

Percent of Each Customer to Total Campus Area
4,238,629 ft 2
Total Area in Ft. 2 per Institute

10
Customer Segmentation DS3

• The Customer Segmentation Chart for DS3, Collect
  and Dispose of Hazardous Waste, was created based
  on a list of customers from the Hazardous Waste
  Customer Database.
• There are a total of 984 customer groups in the
  database.
• A customer is not a single person, but a
  laboratory group that works together under the
  same lab chief or PI.
• Largest Customers NCI (162), NIDDK (102), NIAID
  (100), NHLBI (80)

11
DS 3 Customer Segmentation Collect and Dispose
of Hazardous Materials
24
16
26
31
75
34
47
152
35
50
44
108
50
100
56
80
56
Percent of Each Customer to Total Customer Base
984
Number of Customers per Institute


12
FY02 ORS Customer Scorecard Data for the Annual
Self Assessments Service Group 18 Provide
Waste Management DS3 - Collect and Dispose of
Hazardous Waste 16 October 2002 Summary
Prepared by the Office of Quality Management (OQM)
13
Survey Distribution

• Number of Surveys Distributed
• Collect Chemical Wastes from Laboratories
• and Provide Empty Containers as Needed 30
• Number of Surveys Returned
• Collect Chemical Wastes from Laboratories
• and Provide Empty Containers as Needed
  13
• Response Rate 43

14
Radar ChartFY02 Product/Service Satisfaction
Ratings
ORS Index 8.27
Service Group Index 9.94
10.00
Cost
Cost
7.42
10.00
10.00
7.00
7.00
4.00
4.00
Reliability
Reliability
Quality
Quality
1.00
1.00
10.00
8.48
9.80
8.40
10.00
Timeliness
8.28
Timeliness
Data based on 13 respondents
Data based on 436 respondents
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.
15
Radar ChartFY02 Customer Service Satisfaction
Ratings
Service Group Index 9.97
ORS Index 8.55
8.60
Availability
10.00
Availability
10.00
10.00
7.00
Responsiveness
Handling of
7.00
Responsiveness
Handling of
Problems
8.51
Problems
4.00
10.00
4.00
8.51
10.00
1.00
1.00
Convenience
Competence
Convenience
Competence
8.58
8.54
9.85
10.00
Data based on 13 respondents
Data based on 436 respondents
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.
16
Scatter DiagramFY02 Customer Importance and
Satisfaction Ratings A Closer Look
10.00
Competence
Reliability
9.80
Handling of Problems
Responsiveness
Availability
9.60
Convenience
9.40
Timeliness
9.20
9.00
8.80
Quality
8.60
Importance
8.40
8.20
8.00
7.80
Cost
7.60
7.40
SATISFIED,
IMPORTANT
7.20
7.00
7.00
7.20
7.40
7.60
7.80
8.00
8.20
8.40
8.60
8.80
9.00
9.20
9.40
9.60
9.80
10.00
Satisfaction
Data based on 13 respondents
Note A smaller portion of the chart is shown
so that the individual data points can be labeled.
17
Scorecard Comments for - What was done
particularly well?

• We appreciate the prompt pickup of old full
  containers and the delivery of new empty ones.
• Handling of problems.
• They are prompt and courteous.
• Gentlemen know what assigned task was, performed
  politely and efficiently
• Promptness is very important. The chemical waste
  was picked up within the 24 hour call.
• Polite customer service contact by phone. Picked
  up waste the next morning. Very efficient.
• Response time very good. Very friendly pick up
  people.
• Always prompt, polite.
• I am very impressed with the next day service.

18
Scorecard Comments for What needs to be
improved?

• We have never had a problem.
• Nothing.

19
Feedback to Scorecard Responders

• Provide email back to all responders. Email
  thanks them for participating and gives a summary
  of the results of the surveys. The email
  expresses our commitment to providing the highest
  quality of service and continuing to support the
  NIH mission of biomedical research.

20
Internal Business Process Perspective
21
(No Transcript)
22
Conclusions from Discrete Services Deployment
Flowcharts

• Our Service Group completed 4 deployment
  flowcharts for 4 discrete services
• The flowcharts show EPB waste services are
  potentially impacted by other parties. Other
  parties include
• Housekeeping staff that load and operate trash
  compactors
• MPW generators or CC Housekeeping Staff who
  package MPW for disposal
• Vehicles parked illegally that prevent emptying
  or pulling of trash dumpsters

23
Performance Measures

• DS1 Collection and Processing of Recyclable
  Materials
• Time between customer collection request and
  delivery of service (PBSC Measure)
• Contract Performance Standard Receive service
  request calls for recycling collection from
  Project Officer or customers by phone or
  electronic means, document electronically and
  respond within 24 hours.
• AQL 100 of all service request calls serviced
  within 24 hours
• Results AQL measured for 40 weeks. Met AQL in
  39 of 40 weeks 97.5 Compliance

24
Performance Measures

• DS 1 - Compliance with 24 hour Recycling Pick Up
  Requests 40 week measurement

25
Performance Measures

• DS1 Collection and Processing of Recyclable
  Materials
• Timeliness and effectiveness of recyclable
  collections (PBSC Measure)
• Contract Performance Standard Timely and
  efficient collection of recyclable materials from
  interior and exterior containers and liners
  replaced as required in the SOW
• AQL No more than 10 of a representative sample
  of all containers in use greater than 50 full as
  measured within 4 hours of scheduled service.
• Results AQL measured for 40 weeks. Met AQL in
  40 of 40 weeks 100 Compliance

26
Performance Measures

• DS 1 - Compliance with Timeliness and
  Effectiveness of Emptying Recycling Containers
  Campus Wide 40 week measurement

27
Performance Measures

• DS2 Collection and Disposal of Solid Waste
• Timely and effective emptying of exterior trash
  dumpsters to prevent overfilling and loading dock
  backups (PBSC Measure)
• Contract Performance Standard Empty containers
  on schedules that allows continuous loading from
  the dock.
• AQL No more than 10 of containers full and
  unable to receive additional trash on main campus
  during core hours.
• Results AQL measured for 40 weeks. Met AQL in
  40 of 40 weeks 100 Compliance

28
Performance Measures

• DS 2 - Compliance with Timeliness and
  Effectiveness of Emptying Dumpsters to Prevent
  Overfilling 40 week measurement

29
Performance Measures

• DS2 Collection and Disposal of Solid Waste
• Effectiveness of waste reduction efforts
  accomplished through the recycling program
• The effectiveness was determined by taking the
  amounts recycled divided by amounts of solid
  waste plus amounts recycled. This provides a
  percentage of solid waste reduction achieved
  through recycling.
• Results Achieve an average recycling rate of
  25 for FY2002

30
Performance Measures

• DS 2 Effectiveness of Waste Reduction FY 02 In
  Tonnage and Percentile

31
Performance Measures

• DS3 Collection and Disposal of Hazardous Waste
• Effectiveness of hazardous waste regulatory
  compliance as measured by regulatory violations
• The effectiveness was determined by evaluating
  the results of all regulatory inspections
  performed during FY02. One 2-day regulatory
  inspection was performed by the Maryland
  Department of the Environment.
• Results No regulatory violations were
  discovered as a result of this inspection 100
  compliance

32
Performance Measures

• DS 3 Effectiveness of Hazardous Waste
  Regulatory Compliance FY 02

33
Performance Measures

• DS3 Collection and Disposal of Hazardous Waste
• Time between customer collection request and
  delivery of service
• The effectiveness was determined by using the ORS
  Customer Scorecard. We added an extra question
  on the Scorecard to measure whether the customers
  felt that contract requirement for providing
  waste collection services within 24 hours of
  request was being met.
• Results Of the 12 responders that answered the
  question, all 12 gave a perfect score of 10
  100 compliance

34
DS 3 - Hazardous Waste Survey Survey of Customer
Satisfaction with 24 hour Request for Pick Up
Requirement
35
Performance Measures

• DS3 Collection and Disposal of Hazardous Waste
• Effectiveness of using recycling options as
  compared to destruction or disposal
• The effectiveness was determined by calculating
  the total weight of hazardous waste recovered for
  reuse divided by the the total weight disposed
  plus weight recovered for reuse. This provides a
  percentage of hazardous waste that was
  effectively recovered for reuse.
• Results Achieve an average recycling rate of 18
  for FY2002. This is a very good recycling rate
  due to the light weight of many recyclable waste
  streams.

36
DS 3 - Effectiveness of Utilizing Recycling
Options as Compared to Destruction or Disposal
37
Performance Measures

• DS4 Collection and Disposal of Medical
  Pathological Waste
• Time between MPW boxes placed in storage areas by
  customer and removed by Contractor (PBSC Measure)
• Contract Performance Standard Timely and
  efficient collection of MPW containers from
  building interiors and loading docks
• AQL 90 of all MPW containers collected on-site
  within 3 hours of being set-out by generator.
• Results AQL measured for 40 weeks. Met AQL in
  40 of 40 weeks 100 Compliance

38
Performance Measures

• DS 4 Timeliness and Effectiveness of Pick Ups
  of MPW Boxes within 3 hours of Being Placed Out
  by Client

40 Weeks
40 Weeks
Jan 02
Apr 02
Feb 02
Dec 02
Mar 02
May 02
June 02
Jul 02
Aug 02
Sep 02
39
FY02 Learning and Growth (LG) Data for the
Annual Self Assessments Service Group 18
Provide Waste Management 26 September
2002 Summary Prepared by the Office of Quality
Management
40
Conclusions from Turnover, Sick Leave,
Awards, EEO/ER/ADR Data

• No significant conclusions can be drawn from the
  data

41
Analysis of Readiness Conclusions

• One employee to staff proposed Twinbrook
  Research Complex, scheduled to open 2004.
• Additional human resources for service demands
  created by completion and occupancy of new CRC ,
  Twinbrook Research Campus, and new NRC Building.
  

42
Financial Perspective
43
UNIT COST MEASURED BY COST OF METRIC TON PER YEAR
44
UNIT COST MEASURED BY COST OF METRIC TON PER YEAR
45
UNIT COST MEASURED BY COST OF METRIC TON PER YEAR
46
UNIT COST MEASURED BY COST OF METRIC TON PER YEAR
47
UNIT COST MEASURED BY COST OF METRIC TON PER YEAR
48
Unit Cost Measure Conclusions

• EPB provides top quality waste services to the
  NIH without significant costs increases from year
  to year

49
Asset Utilization Measures

• EPB staff are assigned to manage the recycling
  services and hazardous, medical, and solid waste
  services.
• High amount of direct staff involvement required
  due to complex technical and regulatory nature of
  work. Work writing permits, reviewing
  regulatory shipping documents, new building plans
  impacting our services, and Contractor prepared
  regulatory reports.
• Because the staff does not perform repetitive
  quantifiable tasks, an asset utilization measure
  of EPB human resources was not practical.

50
Conclusions and Recommendations
51
Conclusions from FY02 ASA

• Major findings from the FY02 ASA
• ORS Scorecard showed customer satisfaction at an
  extremely high level

52
Conclusions from FY02 ASA

• Other Comments Concerning ASA Process
• WMS expended approximately 480 total man-hours
• Too much specialized training required
• ASA demands reduced staff ability to provide
  services at highest level
• ASA process needs streamlining to allow
  standardized inputs from Service Groups after
  which final report is self-generated

53
Recommendations

• Award a new 5 year Chemical and Radioactive Waste
  Contract in FY03 with performance based elements.
• Work to improve performance in areas identified
  by process maps
• Implement customer recommendations from scorecard
  where possible

54
Appendices
55
(No Transcript)
56
(No Transcript)
57
FY02 ORS Customer Scorecard Data for the Annual
Self Assessments Service Group 18 Provide
Waste Management DS3 - Collect and Dispose of
Hazardous Waste 16 October 2002 Summary
Prepared by the Office of Quality Management (OQM)
58
Survey Distribution

• Number of Surveys Distributed
• Collect Chemical Wastes from Laboratories
• and Provide Empty Containers as Needed 30
• Number of Surveys Returned
• Collect Chemical Wastes from Laboratories
• and Provide Empty Containers as Needed
  13
• Response Rate 43

59
Survey RespondentsFY02 Respondents by IC
8
7
6
6
5
Number of Respondents
4
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NEI
CIT
NCI
CC
OD
ORS
NIA
CSR
NINR
NLM
NIBIB
NIAID
NIDCR
CBER
NIMH
NIDCD
NHLBI
NIDA
NCRR
JEFIC
NIEHS
NIDDK
NINDS
Other
NHGRI
NIGMS
NICHHD
NIAMS
NCMHD
NIAAA
NCCAM
NIH IC
Data based on 13 respondents
Note One respondent did not answer question.
60
Survey Respondents (cont.)FY02 Respondents by
Location
61
Radar 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.
62
Radar 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.
63
Scatter 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.
64
Scatter 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.
65
Scorecard CommentsWhat was done particularly
well?

• We appreciate the prompt pickup of old full
  containers and the delivery of new empty ones.
• Handling of problems.
• They are prompt and courteous.
• Gentlemen know what assigned task was, performed
  politely and efficiently
• Promptness is very important. The chemical waste
  was picked up within the 24 hour call.
• Polite customer service contact by phone. Picked
  up waste the next morning. Very efficient.
• Response time very good. Very friendly pick up
  people.
• Always prompt, polite.
• I am very impressed with the next day service.

66
What needs to be improved?

• We have never had a problem.
• Nothing.

67
Other Comments

• Task assignment from EPB needs refinement. 1.
  Chemical waste tags need to be redesigned to
  include DATE you delivered containers and
  instructions that containers must be removed
  within 60 days. 2. You should notify all users by
  WRITTEN MAIL or E-MAIL of this new 60 day rule.
• Very good.
• There should be some kind of a clear window on
  the red cans so the investigator will know when
  it is full.
• This is a wonderful service.

68
Customer Scorecard Summary

• Conclusions based on graphs and comments
• Our customers rate the quality of this service
  very highly
• This service excels in all measured areas
• Potential actions based on what you have learned
  from the data
• Revise the Chemical Waste Tag as suggested
• Provide NIH wide email notification concerning
  removal of containers within 60 days

69
Summarizing Your Customer Scorecard Data (cont.)

• Does the customer satisfaction data, when
  compared to data in other perspectives, show
  potential relationships?
• Answer None that could be observed
• From reviewing your data, what could be done to
  improve your customers satisfaction?
• Answer Very little based on the data. We will
  consider customer suggestions concerning the
  Chemical Waste Tag and the collection containers.

70
Feedback to Scorecard Responders

• Will provide email back to all responders. Email
  will thank them for participating and give a
  summary of the results of the surveys. The email
  will express our commitment to providing the
  highest quality of service and continuing to
  support the NIH mission of biomedical research.

71
(No Transcript)
72
Process Flow Charts
73
(No Transcript)
74
(No Transcript)
75
(No Transcript)
76
(No Transcript)
77
(No Transcript)
78
(No Transcript)
79
(No Transcript)
80
(No Transcript)
81
FY02 Learning and Growth (LG) Data for the
Annual Self Assessments Service Group 18
Provide Waste Management 26 September
2002 Summary Prepared by the Office of Quality
Management
82
Service Group Turnover Rate (Oct 2001 - June
2002)
Turnover Rate
Service Group Number
83
Average Hours of Sick Leave Used (Oct 2001 - June
2002)
Average Hours
Service Group Number
84
Average Number of Awards Received (Oct 2001 -
June 2002)
Average number
Service Group Number
85
Average Number of EEO Complaints (Oct 2001 -
June 2002)
Average Number
Service Group Number
86
Average Number of ER Cases (Oct 2001 - June 2002)
Average Number
Service Group Number
87
Average Number of ADR Cases (Oct 2001 - June
2002)
Average Number
Service Group Number
88
Learning and Growth Data Table
No EEO complaints or ER/ADR cases
About 1 award for every 2 employees
About 1 week sick leave per employee
10 employee turnover
89
Summary of Service Group 18Learning and Growth
Data

• Ten percent employee turnover
• About 1 week sick leave used per employee
• About one award for every 2 employees
• No EEO, ER, or ADR issues

90
Conclusions from Turnover, Sick Leave,
Awards, EEO/ER/ADR Data

• No significant conclusions can be drawn from the
  data

91
Answers to Readiness Questions

• 1. What are the right mix of skills and abilities
  needed to carry out the mission of this service
  group?
• Recycling Understanding of industry equipment,
  operations and work practices, basic PC skills,
  contract management skills, communication skills,
  a full understanding of applicable regulations
  and required reports, good people skills and
  customer service skills
• Solid Waste Understanding of industry equipment
  operations and work practices, basic PC skills,
  contract management skills, communication skills,
  a full understanding of applicable regulations
  and required reports, good people skills and
  customer service skills

92
Answers to Readiness Questions (Cont.)

• Hazardous Waste Understanding of hazardous
  waste regulations and their application at the
  NIH, ability to interpret new regulations and
  permit conditions knowledge of the industry
  (transportation, treatment, and disposal), good
  college science background in chemistry, biology,
  and physics, good PC skills for data tracking and
  document preparation, contract management skills,
  communication skills, good people skills and
  customer service skills
• Medical Waste Understanding of industry
  operations and work practices, college background
  in biology and general sciences, understanding of
  state and DOT medical waste regulations, basic PC
  skills, contract management skills, communication
  skills, good people skills and customer service
  skills

93
Answers to Readiness Questions (Cont.)

• 2. Will the service group have sufficient
  numbers of people, with the right skills and
  abilities to carry out its mission in the next
  three years?
• In 2004, an additional EPB staff member will be
  required to manage proposed Twinbrook Research
  Complex Waste Facility.
• Additional staff resources also required
  2004-2006 to support increased service demands
  created by occupancy phases of following new
  buildings CRC, NRC and Twinbrook Research
  Complex.

94
Answers to Readiness Questions (Cont.)

• 3. What are going to be the training needs of the
  employees and contractors employed in this
  service group in the next two to three years?
• Will continue our existing training track
  including regulatory and industry specific
  training, customer relations and leadership
  skills training, on-site training required by
  permits, and IT training related to data tracking
  and contract management. A stronger emphasis
  will be placed on IT training related to data
  management and on leadership/management skills.

95
Answers to Readiness Questions (Cont.)

• 4. What will be the right tools or materials
  (e.g., information, software applications,
  hardware, specialized equipment) needed to carry
  out the mission of this service group in the next
  three years?
• Industrial waste handling equipment, hazardous
  waste analytical equipment, replacement
  computers, hazardous waste tracking software, and
  data tracking software. On-site staging area for
  dumpsters with suspected hazardous material
  contamination.

96
Answers to Readiness Questions (Cont.)

• 5. Does the service group have the right quantity
  of tools or materials needed to carry out its
  mission in the next three years?
• Mainly need to continue existing hazardous waste
  tracking software enhancements for more detailed
  data tracking.
• 6. What are the anticipated implications of not
  obtaining the right mix of skills and abilities,
  or tools and materials (e.g., service disruption,
  inefficiencies, increased turnover of key
  personnel) in meeting service or mission
  expectations?
• Greater difficulties in tracking and retrieving
  critical hazardous waste data and reduced work
  efficiency by contractor staff.