asa template training - national institutes of health€¦ · ppt file · web view ·...

1

FY02 ASA Presentation

Ensure Integrity of NIH Facilities

Presented by: Mehryar Ebrahimi

Office of Research ServicesNational Institutes of Health

18 November 2002

2

Table of ContentsMain Presentation

ASA Template ……………………………….……………………………….4Customer Perspective……………………….……………………………….6

Customer Segmentation …………………….……………………………………8Customer Satisfaction……………………….…………………………………….10

Internal Business Process Perspective…………………………………….12Service Group Block Diagram…………………………………………………….13Conclusions from Discrete Services Deployment Flowcharts…………………14Process Measures………………………………………………………………….15

Learning and Growth Perspective…………………………………………...21Conclusions from Turnover, Sick Leave, Awards, EEO/ER/ADR Data……….23Analysis of Readiness Conclusions………………………………………………24

Financial Perspective………………………………………………………...25Unit Cost……………………………………………………………………………..26Asset Utilization……………………………………………………………………..28Conclusions and Recommendations……………………………………………..34Conclusions from FY02 ASA..…………………………………………………….35Recommendations………………………………………………………………….37

3

Table of Contents

AppendicesPage 2 of your ASA TemplateCustomer survey results and graphsProcess mapsLearning and Growth graphs

4

ASA Template - 2002

Customer Value Proposition

Team Leader


DS5:

Discrete Services

Service Group

DS3:

Customer Intimacy Sustain

X Operational Excellence Growth

Service Strategy

Provide planning, design and construction management services within allotted budget and schedule to install reliable and maintainable building utility infrastructure that meets immediate needs of the building occupants and is flexible for adopting future growth, meeting codes, guidelines, and critical accreditation requirements. Also install a reliable and maintainable campus utility infrastructure that meets the short and long term utility needs of the campus.

DS1: Ensure Integrity of Campus Utility Infrastrucutre

DS2: Ensure Integrity of Campus Building Utility Infrastructure

DS6:

DS4:

Team Members

Jim Lewis - Team 3 DCAB/DES

Paul Hawver - Team 7 DCAB/DES

Product Leadership Harvest

Mehryar Ebrahimi

X

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 PWB’s primary customers are the IC’s 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

Cusomers- Ensure Integrity of Campus Utility Infrastructure as a percentage of all PWB Employees

within Central Utilities Section

Customers Surveyed

(Supervisors)23%

Customers Not Surveyed

77%

Customers Surveyed(Supervisors)Customers Not Surveyed

Total Population= 64Total 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

Customers- Ensure Integrity of Campus Building Utility Infrastructure as a Percentage of all PWB

Employees within Building Maintenance Sections

Customers Surveyed

(Supervisors)5%

Customers Not Surveyed

95%

Customers Surveyed(Supervisors)Customers Not Surveyed

Total Population= 222Total Customers= 12

10

• 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.

Customer Satisfaction

11

Scatter Diagram For DS-2Insure Campus Integrity

FY02 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.

4.00

4.50

5.00

5.50

6.00

6.50

7.00

7.50

8.00

8.50

9.00

9.50

10.00

4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 6.00 6.50 7.00 7.50 8.00 8.50 9.00 9.50 10.00

Satisfaction

Impo

rtan

ce

SATISFIED,IMPORTANT

Cost

Convenience

Responsiveness

Availability

Handling of Problems

Competence

Quality

Timeliness

Reliability

Data based on 8 respondents

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 officer’s time in DCAB. Our primary interface points are with “Perform Facilities Maintenance and Operations” and “Provide Facilities Management Services”

IC identifiesspace/

equipmentneeds

DCAB/PWBIdentify

infrastructureneeds

Secure funding Plan and design Constructinfrastructure

Hand off to PWB

Block Diagram: Ensure Integrity of FacilitiesDate: 11/05/02 Participants: ASA Team

14

• 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.

Conclusions from Discrete Services Deployment Flowcharts

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

Service Group: Ensure Integrity of NIH FacilitiesDiscrete Service: DS2: Ensure integrity of campus building utility infrastructure Page 1 of 2Date: Revised 10/15/02 Participants: ASA Team

OF

P/O

CL

PWB

A/E

Con

trac

tors

Pro

cure

men

tD

CA

B T

eam

sIC Identif y need

Identif yinf rastructure

need

Plan BuildingInf rastructureImprov ement

Inf rastructureimprov ement

needed?

No f urther actionneeded

Review

Money inbudget?

Con

tinue

don

p. 2

Seek f unding f romCongress

No

Yesy es

no

Is improv ementf or Building

10?

Dev elopPlan f orBlg 10

y es

EstimateAssociated

Costs

Process Map for Ensuring Building Utility Integrity

17

Discrete Service: DS1: Ensure integrity of campus building utility infrastructure, (continued) Page 2 of 2Date: Revised 10/30/02 Participants: ASA Team

OF

P/O

CL

PWB

Con

trac

tors

Pro

cure

men

tD

CA

B T

eam

Conitnued

from p. 1

A/E ContractorPrepare Design

Packages &Transmit to PO

Prepare designcontracting

package

Award DesignContract

DesignApprov ed

Prepareconstruction

contractDocuments

Award contract

ConstructionContractorSubmittals

ConstructionApprov ed by

PO and IC

Yes Yes

No

Shut Down

y esNo

ConstructionComplete

Input from clinicalcenter Infrastructure

Team for Bldg 10Projects

DesignReview

PO Coordinatewith NIH Div isionsand prov ides all

aspects of projectmanagement

SubmittalsApprov ed

PO Transmitsdocument toappropriate

parties &CoordinateComments

No

Phy sicalConstruction

No

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)

10 Year Project Action TrendDES/DCAB Infrastructure Team 7

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

92' 93' 94' 95' 96' 97' 98' 99' 00' 01' 02'Fiscal Year

Num

ber

of A

ctio

ns

Post Construction

Prescreen

Managerial

Design

Correct Existing

Construction

20

Process MeasuresBuilding 10 Utilities Infrastructure Group (DCAB Team 7)

Project Action Distribution

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Project Action Type

Num

ber o

f Act

ions

DCAB

OTHER

PWB

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 L&G 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

• 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.

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

24

• 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.

Analysis of Readiness Conclusions

25

Financial Perspective

26

• 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.

Unit Cost Measures

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

• 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.

Asset Utilization Measures

29

Utilization of PO's Time for "Ensure Integrity of Campus Utilities"

$-

$100,000

$200,000

$300,000

$400,000

$500,000

$600,000

$700,000

$800,000

Fiscal Year

Ann

ual A

mou

nts

$

ORS Budget $713,000 $743,000 Obligated $409,000 $743,000 Billing for PO's Time $266,000 $373,000

FY01 FY02

Budget increase of 4% in 02 vs. 01DCAB 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

Utilization of PO's Time for "Ensure Integrity of Building Utilities

$-

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

$3,000,000

$4,000,000

Fiscal Year

Ann

ual a

mou

nt $

ORS Budget $3,124,312 $3,200,000

Obligations $2,700,000 $-

Billing for PO's Time $1,370,000 $1,400,000

FY01 FY02

31

Project Officers Utilization of Time for "Ensure Campus Integrity"

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Percentage of Time Charged

Perc

ent o

f PO

's

FY'01 FY'02

FY'01 56% 15% 4% 4% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0%FY'02 61% 27% 10% 1% 1% 3% 1% 0% 0% 0%

0 1<=5% 5%<=10% 10%<=15%

15%<=20%

20%<=25%

25%<=30%

30%<=35%

35%<=80% >80%

32

Building Integrity Efficiency of Project Officers

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Percentage of Time Charged

Perc

ent o

f PO

's

FY'01 FY'02

FY'01 32% 8% 21% 4% 7% 10% 6% 1% 0% 3%

FY'02 31% 6% 18% 9% 10% 7% 12% 1% 0% 3%

0 1<=5% 5%<=10% 10%<=15% 15%<=20% 20%<=25% 25%<=30% 30%<=35% 35%<=80% >80%

Over 30% of PO’s 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 PO’s 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 PO’s 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

1. The following are observations from of the Radar Charts and the comments from surveys (PWB) for the “Ensure Campus Integrity” discrete service:

a. Quality, Cost, Competence, Reliability, and Availability were rated above average with Quality and Competence being the highest ranked.

b. Timeliness, Responsiveness, Handling of Problems and Convenience were rated below average with Timeliness being the lowest ranked.

36

Conclusions from FY02 ASA2. The following are conclusions from the comments provided in the

surveys:a. What was done particularly well:

i. Communicationii. Construction of Tunnel (Reliability, Safety, maintenance)

b. What needs to be improved:i. Timelinessii. Trainingiii. Coordinationiv. Closeoutv. More involvement during Inspection, Commissioning and

Acceptancevi. Involvement in all levels of discussions affecting the utilitiesvii. PWB is the customerviii. Beneficial occupancy dates should be agreed to by customers

(PWB)

37

Recommendations

1. Identify PWB as a customer in DCAB’s ISO 9000 procedure manual. This would require PWB’s involvement in all aspects of the project specifically sign off requirement at 35% Design and Construction closeout. (Action by DCAB)

38

Recommendations Cont …2. 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):

a. For each project identify if there is impact on the utilities, both campus and building utilities, during planning (Existing system - PIN).

b. Provide automatic Notification to the PWB central point of contact of the utility impacts and the design / construction schedule.

c. 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 PWB’s reviews are done in a timely manner and returned to DCAB.

39

Recommendations Cont …

3. 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 …4. 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).

5. 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

Sick Leave Usage

Percent of plans that are reviewed by Public Works for Campus Utility Infrastructure (FY03 Measure)

Increase Understanding of customer base

Service Group: Ensure Integrity of NIH Facilities

Performance Objective

Enhance quality of work life for employees in ORS.

Identify methods to measure processes.

DS2: Ensure Integrity of Campus Building Utitlity Infrastructure

Learning and Growth Perspective

Performance Measure

Financial Perspective

Performance MeasureInternal Business Process Perspective

Complete process maps of Service Group/Discrete Services

Identify and report on process measures for Discrete Services


Increase understanding of processes.

Performance Measure

DS1: Ensure Integrity of Campus Utility Infrasturcutre

Percent of plans that are reviewed by Public Works for Campus Building Utility Infrastructure (FY03 Measure)

Turnover


Customer PerspectivePerformance Measure

Customer satisfaction ratings from the ORS Customer Scorecard for each Discrete ServiceIncrease Customer Satisfaction

Customer segmenatation of Discrete Services


Awards/Recognition

Actual assets utilized/planned asset utilization for each Discrete ServiceMaximize utilization of assets.

Maintain & enhance competencies for the future organization.Employee Training (Technical and Administrative such as PIN and ISO 9000)

Contacts/Complaints with EEO/ER/ADR

Minimize unit cost at a defined service level Change in Unit Cost for each discrete service

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.

Service Group Index = 5.32

6.00

5.13

4.25

6.251.00

4.00

7.00

10.00Cost

Quality

Timeliness

Reliability


ORS Index = 8.22

8.37

8.20

8.44

7.39

1.00

4.00

7.00

10.00Cost

Quality

Timeliness

Reliability


46

Radar ChartFY02 Customer Service Satisfaction Ratings



4.63 4.63

4.886.29

5.75

1.00

4.00

7.00

10.00Availability

Responsiveness

ConvenienceCompetence

Handling ofProblems


ORS Index = 8.51

8.55

8.56 8.50

8.468.44

1.00

4.00

7.00

10.00Availability

Responsiveness


Handling ofProblems


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.

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00

Satisfaction

Impo

rtan

ce

NOT SATISFIED, IMPORTANT

NOT SATISIFIED, NOT IMPORTANT

SATISFIED,IMPORTANT

SATISFIED, NOT IMPORTANT


48

Scatter DiagramFY02 Customer Importance and Satisfaction Ratings: A Closer Look


4.00

4.50

5.00

5.50

6.00

6.50

7.00

7.50

8.00

8.50

9.00

9.50

10.00

4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 6.00 6.50 7.00 7.50 8.00 8.50 9.00 9.50 10.00

Satisfaction

Impo

rtan

ce

SATISFIED,IMPORTANT

Cost

Convenience

Responsiveness

Availability

Handling of Problems

Competence

Quality

Timeliness

Reliability


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 don’t 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/addition 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


ORS Index = 8.22

8.37

8.20

8.44

7.39

1.00

4.00

7.00

10.00Cost

Quality

Timeliness

Reliability



4.00

7.50

5.00

7.501.00

4.00

7.00

10.00Cost

Quality

Timeliness

Reliability


55

Radar ChartFY02 Customer Service Satisfaction Ratings


ORS Index = 8.51

8.55

8.56 8.50

8.468.44

1.00

4.00

7.00

10.00Availability

Responsiveness


Handling ofProblems



7.00 6.00

6.507.00

5.00

1.00

4.00

7.00

10.00Availability

Responsiveness


Handling ofProblems


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.

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00

Satisfaction

Impo

rtan

ce

NOT SATISFIED, IMPORTANT

NOT SATISIFIED, NOT IMPORTANT

SATISFIED,IMPORTANT

SATISFIED, NOT IMPORTANT


57

Scatter DiagramFY02 Customer Importance and Satisfaction Ratings: A Closer Look


4.00

4.50

5.00

5.50

6.00

6.50

7.00

7.50

8.00

8.50

9.00

9.50

10.00

4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 6.00 6.50 7.00 7.50 8.00 8.50 9.00 9.50 10.00

Satisfaction

Impo

rtan

ce

SATISFIED,IMPORTANT

CostConvenience

ResponsivenessAvailability Handling of Problems

Competence

Quality

Timeliness

Reliability


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)Service Group: Ensure Integrity of NIH FacilitiesDiscrete Service: DS2: Ensure integrity of campus building utility infrastructure Page 1 of 2Date: Revised 10/15/02 Participants: ASA Team

OF

P/O

CL

PWB

A/E

Con

trac

tors

Pro

cure

men

tD

CA

B T

eam

sIC

Identif y needMaster Plan or Additional

Loads to the Campus


need

Plan CampusInf rastructureImprov ement


needed?


Review

Money inbudget?

Con

tinue

don

p. 2

Seek f unding

No

Yes y es

no

EstimateAssociated

Costs

Prov ide Input and coordinationthrough the Master Plan and EA/

EIS

61

Process Map for DS1 (page 2 of 2)Discrete Service: DS1: Ensure integrity of campus building utility infrastructure, (continued) Page 2 of 2Date: Revised 10/30/02 Participants: ASA Team

OF

P/O

CL

PWB

Con

trac

tors

Pro

cure

men

tD

CA

B T

eam

Conitnued

from p. 1




package


DesignApprov ed

Prepareconstruction

contractDocuments

Award contract



PO and IC

Yes Yes

No

Shut Down

y esNo


DesignReview

PO Coordinatewith NIH Div isions

and prov ides allaspects of project

management

SubmittalsApprov ed



No


No

Coordinate EA / EIS / NCPC

62

Process Map for DS2: (Page 1 of 2)Service Group: Ensure Integrity of NIH FacilitiesDiscrete Service: DS2: Ensure integrity of campus building utility infrastructure Page 1 of 2Date: Revised 10/15/02 Participants: ASA Team

OF

P/O

CL

PWB

A/E

Con

trac

tors

Pro

cure

men

tD

CA

B T

eam

sIC Identif y need


need

Plan BuildingInf rastructureImprov ement


needed?


Review

Money inbudget?

Con

tinue

don

p. 2

Seek f unding f romCongress

No

Yesy es

no

Is improv ementf or Building

10?

Dev elopPlan f orBlg 10

y es

EstimateAssociated

Costs

63

Process Map for DS2 (Page 2 of 2)Discrete Service: DS1: Ensure integrity of campus building utility infrastructure, (continued) Page 2 of 2Date: Revised 10/30/02 Participants: ASA Team

OF

P/O

CL

PWB

Con

trac

tors

Pro

cure

men

tD

CA

B T

eam

Conitnued

from p. 1




package


DesignApprov ed

Prepareconstruction

contractDocuments

Award contract



PO and IC

Yes Yes

No

Shut Down

y esNo


Input from clinicalcenter Infrastructure

Team for Bldg 10Projects

DesignReview

PO Coordinatewith NIH Div isions

and prov ides allaspects of project

management

SubmittalsApprov ed



No


No

64

FY02 Learning and Growth (L&G) Data for the Annual Self Assessments

Service Group 34:


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 L&G data were collected and analyzed

• Compare your Service Group relative to the other ORS Service Groups

• What are all the L&G 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 L&G data, when compared to data in other perspectives, show potential relationship (could L&G be contributing to customer satisfaction results)?

• From reviewing your Service Group’s L&G 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

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

12 16 21 30 27 20 42 13 41 3 23 11 7 18 25 1 2 10 17 31 40 26 28 37 29 33 39 5 32 34 36 38 4 8 9 14 15 19 35 43

Service Group Turnover Rate (Oct 2001 - June 2002)

Service Group Number

Turn

over

Rat

e

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

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

14 3 9 31 8 17 43 38 36 33 41 12 30 28 18 29 21 39 20 16 11 27 40 35 5 32 34 26 42 19 4 15 37 23 1 2 10 13 7 25

Average Hours of Sick Leave Used(Oct 2001 - June 2002)


Ave

rage

Hou

rs

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

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

9 43 1 2 10 40 42 7 11 41 12 4 5 32 34 28 39 35 33 8 15 36 38 37 29 17 14 31 16 30 19 18 13 20 21 3 26 25 27 23

Average Number of Awards Received(Oct 2001 - June 2002)


Ave

rage

num

ber

75

Average Number of EEO Complaints

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

76

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

20 7 26 38 36 1 2 3 4 5 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 23 25 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 37 39 40 41 42 43

Average Number of EEO Complaints (Oct 2001 - June 2002)


Ave

rage

Num

ber

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

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

7 23 16 3 31 26 13 9 20 38 36 17 37 29 39 5 32 34 1 2 4 8 10 11 12 14 15 18 19 21 25 27 28 30 33 35 40 41 42 43

Average Number of ER Cases (Oct 2001 - June 2002)


Ave

rage

Nu m

b er

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

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

7 9 30 26 33 3 5 32 34 20 21 31 29 39 28 36 16 38 1 2 4 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 18 19 23 25 27 35 37 40 41 42 43

Average Number of ADR Cases (Oct 2001 - June 2002)


Ave

rage

Num

ber

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

Popu

latio

n Es

timat

e

No. o

f Sep

arat

ions

Turn

over

Rat

eTo

tal H

ours

of S

ick

Leav

e Us

edAv

erag

e Ho

urs

of

Sick

Lea

ve U

sed

Num

ber o

f Awa

rds

Rece

ived

Aver

age

Num

ber o

f

Awar

ds R

ecei

ved

Num

ber o

f EEO

Co

mpl

aint

sAv

erag

e Nu

mbe

r of

EEO

Com

plai

nts

Num

ber o

f ER

Case

s

Aver

age

Num

ber o

f

ER C

ases

Num

ber o

f ADR

Ca

ses

Aver

age

Num

ber o

f

ADR

Case

s

522 12 1 0.08 363 29 11 0.89 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.085214 2 0 0.00 106 53 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.005215 6 0 0.00 308 51 6 1.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 0.335222 10 0 0.00 376 38 11 1.10 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.005223 14 0 0.00 384 28 15 1.10 0 0.00 1 0.07 0 0.005224 12 0 0.00 283 24 11 0.92 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.005225 8 0 0.00 350 44 13 1.63 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.005226 14 0 0.00 328 23 18 1.29 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.005227 6 0 0.00 192 32 7 1.17 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.005228 2 0 0.00 0 0 2 1.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.005229 4 0 0.00 135 34 5 1.25 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00522B 5 0 0.00 39 8 4 0.86 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00522D 17 2 0.12 436 26 19 1.14 0 0.00 1 0.06 2 0.12

Service Group 34

Total111 3 0.03 3298 30 122 1.10 0 0.00 2 0.02 5 0.04

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