FY02 ASA Presentation Ensure Integrity of NIH Facilities

1
FY02 ASA Presentation Ensure Integrity of NIH
Facilities

• Presented by
• Mehryar Ebrahimi
• Office of Research Services
• National Institutes of Health
• 18 November 2002

2
Table 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

3
Table of Contents

• Appendices
• Page 2 of your ASA Template
• Customer survey results and graphs
• Process maps
• Learning and Growth graphs

4
(No Transcript)
5
Discrete 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

6
Customer Perspective
7
WHO 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.

8
Customer 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
9
Customer 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
10
Customer 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.

11
Scatter 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.
12
Internal Business Process Perspective
13
Service 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

14
Conclusions 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.

15
Process 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.

16
Process Map for Ensuring Building Utility
Integrity
17
Process Map for Ensuring Building Utility
Integrity Cont
Note there is little to no involvement from PWB
after completion of the design
18
Process 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.

19
Process MeasuresBuilding 10 Utilities
Infrastructure Group (DCAB Team 7)
20
Process MeasuresBuilding 10 Utilities
Infrastructure Group (DCAB Team 7)
21
Learning and Growth Perspective
22
Summary 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

23
Conclusions 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.

24
Analysis 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.

25
Financial Perspective
26
Unit 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.

Fiscal Year Total Campus Gross SF Total Budget Cost of DS-1/GSF
2001 9,405,937 713,000 .076
2002 9,405,937 743,000 .079
27
Unit 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.

Fiscal Year Total Campus Gross SF Total Budget Cost of DS-1/GSF
2001 9,405,937 3,124,000 .33
2002 9,405,937 3,200,000 .34
28
Asset 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.

29
Budget increase of 4 in 02 vs. 01 DCAB charges
increased by 40 in 02 vs. 01
30
Budget increase of 2.5 in 02 vs. 01 DCAB charges
increased by 7 in 02 vs. 01
31
(No Transcript)
32
Over 30 of POs are not charging to the ORS
account on Building Integrity although they
provide the service.
33
Conclusion 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.

34
Conclusions and Recommendations
35
Conclusions 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.

36
Conclusions 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)

37
Recommendations

1. 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)

38
Recommendations 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.

39
Recommendations 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)

40
Recommendations 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).

41
Appendices
42
Appendices

• 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

43
Page 2 of Revised Template
44
Customer Survey Results

• DS1 Ensure Integrity of Campus Utility
  Infrastructure

45
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.
46
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.
47
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.
48
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.
49
Reviewing 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

50
What 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.

51
What 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.

52
Other 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.

53
Customer Survey Results

• DS2 Ensure Integrity of Campus Building Utility
  Infrastructure

54
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.
55
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.
56
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.
57
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.
58
What 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.

59
Other 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.

60
Process Map for DS1 (page 1 of 2)
61
Process Map for DS1 (page 2 of 2)
62
Process Map for DS2 (Page 1 of 2)
63
Process 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
65
Methodology

• 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

66
Methodology (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

67
Interpreting 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)?

68
Service 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

69
Service 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)

70
Service Group Turnover Rate (Oct 2001 - June
2002)
Turnover Rate
Service Group Number
71
Average Hours of Sick Leave Used

• Calculated as the total number of sick leave
  hours used for a Service Group / Population of
  Service Group

72
Average Hours of Sick Leave Used (Oct 2001 - June
2002)
Average Hours
Service Group Number
73
Average 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

74
Average Number of Awards Received (Oct 2001 -
June 2002)
Average number
Service Group Number
75
Average Number of EEO Complaints

• Calculated the total number of EEO complaints for
  a Service Group / Population of Service Group

76
Average Number of EEO Complaints (Oct 2001 -
June 2002)
Average Number
Service Group Number
77
Average 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)

78
Average Number of ER Cases (Oct 2001 - June 2002)
Average Number
Service Group Number
79
Average 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

80
Average Number of ADR Cases (Oct 2001 - June
2002)
Average Number
Service Group Number
81
Learning 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

82
Summary 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