perform preventative maintenance (pm) work process...

W. PettersKey Work

Process(2): Process Owner:

Work System OwnerEd Curry

Work System Enabling LeaderDane Theodore, Director

Priority Processes Owner Walt Petters, Director

March 12, 2009

Revision 1

Perform PreventativeMaintenance (PM) Work Process Improvements

PERFORM PREVENTATIVEMAINTENANCE (PM) WORK

W. PettersKey Work

Process(2): Process Owner:

PERFORM PREVENTATIVEMAINTENANCE (PM) WORK

REVISION LOG

SECTION NUMBER REVISION DATE REVISION DESCRIPTION

16 3/12/09 Indicator Update

Multiple 3/12/09 EZ DMAIC 20 Checkpoint Review

PERFORM PM WORK W. PettersKey Work

Process (2): Process Owner:

Table of Contents1. Cover Sheet2. Table of Contents3. Internal and External Customers4. Macro Flow Chart - Manage Facilities Operations and Maintenance5. Key Work Process 2 Flow Chart - Manage Preventative Maintenance6. DMAIC Lite Storyboard - Check Points 1-187. Priority Process Selection Matrix Form8. Key-In-Process Measures Determination System Form9. BPS Process Management System10. Macro Process Control System Form11. Key Work Process 2 Process Control System Form12. Countermeasure Matrix13. Countermeasure Action Plan Matrix14. Action Plan Root Cause #115. Action Plan Root Cause #216. Key Work Process Indicator Data

PO&M INTERNAL CUSTOMERSSchool Board

SuperintendentArea SuperintendentsDistrict AdministrationSchool AdministrationSchool Support Staff

Teachers

PO&M EXTERNAL CUSTOMERSState of Florida

Florida Department of EducationLocal GovernmentsParents / Guardians

Students

PERFORM PM WORK W. PettersKey Work

Process (2): Process Owner:

PROVIDE WELL MAINTAINED, SAFE AND COMFORTABLE FACILITIESTO SUPPORT THE BPS EDUCATIONAL PROCESS.

OPENFACILITY

OPERATE FACILITY

PROCESS WORK ORDER(S)

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

DELIVERABLES:D1- MONTHLY WORK ORDER REPORT

D2 - ANNUAL FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT

Q1 - Operations Cost Per GSF

Q2 - Maintenance Cost Per GSF

Q3 - Total (Operations + Maintenance) Cost Per GSF

Q4 - PM and W/O Activity Per Year

Q5 - W/O Backlog Per Year

Q6 - PM / Service W/O Ratio

Q7 - PO&M / Facility-Generated W/O Ratio

Q8 - PM Work Order Backlog Per Year

PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE (PM)

WORK NEEDED?

PERFORMPM WORK

IS THE FACILITY OPERATING AS PLANNED?

PROBLEM FIXED?

WORK ORDERCLOSED?

FIXPROBLEM

YES

YES

NO

NO

END OF NORMALFACILITY OPERATION?

END OF EXTENDEDFACILITY OPERATION?

CLOSE FACILITY

P1 - Operational Systems Monitoring Hours of Operation

P2 - PM Work Per Month

P3 - School-Generated W/O Per Month P4 - Service W/O Per Month P5 - PO&M-Generated W/O Per Month P6 - # W/O Opened / Closed Per Month P7 - # Backlogged W/O Per Month P8 - Aging W/O Per Month P9 - Operations Cost Per MonthP10 - Maintenance Cost Per Month

CAN PROBLEM BE FIXEDBY FACILITY’S CUSTODIAL STAFF?

FACILITIES SERVICES / Robert J. Wiebel & Walt Petters 12/12/08

NEED ISMET

NEED

MONITOR FACILITYOPERATIONAL SYSTEMS

WHO

STEP

MacroProcess: Process Owner:

NEED

MONITOR

OPERATE

OPEN

PERFORM

QUESTION

QUESTION

QUESTION

FIX

QUESTION

QUESTION

QUESTION

QUESTION

QUESTION

PROCESS

CLOSE

MANAGED

MANAGE FACILITIES OPERATIONS AND

MAINTENANCE( 9562) WALT PETTERS

BPS SCHOOLS ANDDEPARTMENTS

FACILITIES OPERATIONSAND MAINTENANCE

BPS SCHOOL BOARD

Note: This chart represents a typical daily operation process. Theschool principal operates the facility in conjunction with PO&M.

KWP3

KWP2

KWP1

DISPATCHFASTTEAM

?

NEED FACILITYMAINTAINED

“TO EFFECTIVELY AND EFFICIENTLY MAINTAIN DISTRICT FACILITIES”

SCHEDULEPM WORK

CAN PM WORK BE PERFORMED BY

FAST TEAM?

YES

NO

ISSUEW/O

P2.1 - # PM WORK ORDERSCHEDULED?

NEED ISMET

?

DISPATCHTECHNICIAN

UPDATEDATA BASE

P2.2 - PM WORK ORDERS CLOSED PER MONTH

EVALUATE

COMPLETEPM

MAKE NOTEON PM W/O

ISSUE W/0REQUEST

PERFORM PM

YES

NONEED ADDITIONALWORK?

Macro - Q 4 PM - W/O ACTIVITY PER YEAR

KWP2 - Q4.1 - PM WORK ACTIVITY PER MONTH

MANAGE PREVENTATIVEMAINTENANCE W. PETTERS

WHO

STEP

Key WorkProcess (2): Process Owner:

SCHOOL SITE OR ANCILLARY FACILITY SUPERVISOR TECHNICIANFAST TEAM

PO&MDISPATCHER

NEED

SCHEDULE

ISSUE

QUESTION

EVALUATE

PERFORM

DISPATCH

QUESTION

MANAGED

UPDATE

COMPLETE

ISSUE

MAKE

FACILITIES SERVICES / ROBERT J. WIEBEL / WALT PETTERS 1/05/09

Note: Identify repair work not associated with PM and needed parts.

ATTACHMENT A

© ets, Inc. / CTi 1990 - 2008 Page 1 1

INSTRUCTIONS: Please return your completed DMAIC Storyboard, along with your Process Control System (both flow chart and indicator information) and your completed Action Plan (see “Improve” checkpoint #10), via email to [email protected] and copy Steve Muzzy on all emails. Thank you, Bob Seemer, President & COO, Electronic Training Solutions, Inc. Priority Process Name: PLANT OPERATION & MAINTENANCE Work System / Leader: WALT PETTERS

KWP2 Perform Preventative Maintenance DMAIC “Lite” Storyboard

DEFINE

1. Describe how the linkage between the process Q measures and the District’s KPIs (or strategic objective measures) was established and confirmed.

In order to meet 2008/2009 Strategic Plan 4.1.1 (KPI) to be ranked first in Florida in the percentage of classroom and school spending and last in district administration and 4.1.5 Improve and maintain control of fixed assets at all worksites by 2010 – 2011 school year, Plant Operations and Maintenance (PO&M) has deployed a computerized maintenance management system. This system monitors and collects district-wide plant operating data and creates reports. In light of need to improve PO&M efficiencies and reduce operating costs, two (2) Macro and one (1) Key Work Process (KWP) Q measures have been developed to collect data that can be monitored and evaluated on a pre-determined basis.

Macro Q4. PM and W.O Activity Per Year

o KWP Q4.1 PM Activity Per Month Macro Q6. PM / Service W/O Ratio

2. Explain which process Q measure(s) will be improved. In order to identify the Q measure(s) that should be focused on for improvement efforts, a Facilities PO&M Priority Process Selection Matrix and a Key In-Process Measures Determination Form were created (see Pages 7 and 8). It was determined that key process “Processing Work Orders was in need of improvement. After a preliminary process analysis of the number of work orders opened / closed per month, preventative maintenance (Type 2) work orders to routine and the number of backlogged work orders per month, it was noted that Q measures Q4, Q4.1 and Q6 would be affected and improved. By increasing the number of preventative maintenance (Type 2) work orders, Q measures Q4, Q4.1 and Q6 would be improved thus resulting in an overall improvement of OP&M service and the reduction of Service (Type 1) and Corrective Maintenance (Type 9) work orders.

3. Develop a theme statement which will focus your process improvement efforts. The theme statement must be consistent with the measure in checkpoint #2, above.

The number of Preventative Maintenance (Type 2) work orders have decreased because the number of Service (Type 1) and Corrective Maintenance (Type 9) work orders have increased since the School Board of Brevard County budget cuts started in the 2007/2008 fiscal year.

ATTACHMENT A

© ets, Inc. / CTi 1990 - 2008 Page 2 1

DMAIC “Lite” Storyboard

MEASURE

4. List up to five (5) potential problem areas in this process and the associated P measure(s) for each.

Reduced PO&M and Capital budgets and Staffing restrictions. (KWP3 - P9 & P10)

New added facilities constructed.

Number of Service Work Order (Type 1) are increasing because of continuous aging of buildings and equipment. (KWP3 - P3)

5. Select the most significant problem or opportunity and develop a problem statement which answers the questions: What? When? Gap between actual and targeted values?

Problem: The number of scheduled Type 2 preventative maintenance work orders has dropped because of the increase in the number of Type 1 Service and Type 9 Corrective Maintenance work orders.

Problem Statement: As a result of the economic environment in Florida and Brevard County, the amount available total funds (revenues) coming into the Brevard Public School District has decreased $27.0M between school fiscal years 06/07 and 07/08 and $190.74M between fiscal years 07/08 and 08/08. This decrease in revenues has caused the operating budget between 06/07 and 07/08 to increase by $30.19M and drop by $20.46M between 07/08 and 08/09. This loss of operating funds, for the 08/09 school year, caused a freeze on staffing and a reduction of all vacant maintenance positions. Starting FY 05/06 the number of scheduled Type 2 W/O increased, on average, 2,000 per year. By the end of FY 07/08, the number of scheduled Type 2 W/O reached 12,914. It has been forecast by the end of FY 08/09 the number of Type 2 W/O will have dropped to 9,906. This is the start of a downward trend caused by the decrease in school district operating funds, the addition new facilities, the aging of existing facilities and equipment and a reduction in maintenance staff. See attached Type 1/2/9 Work Order Analysis and Staffing Charts.

Gap: The Type 2 W/O gap between FY 07/08 and FY 08/09 is 3,008. The PM W/O per FTE gap between FY 07/08 and FY 08/09 is 9.93 PM W/Os. These gaps will continue to grow as additional School Board of Brevard County operating budget cuts continue in FY 09/010.

ATTACHMENT A

© ets, Inc. / CTi 1990 - 2008 Page 3


ANALYZE

6. List up to five (5) potential causes of the selected problem from checkpoint #5 in the “Measure” step.

A. Reduced operating budget

B. Reduced staffing

C. Reduced use of overtime.

D. Reduced or elimination of filling vacant positions

E. Increase in Type 1 and Type 9 Work Orders

7. List the root causes and describe the approach used to select them from among the others.

Root Causes Approach Used To Select Root Cause

A. Declining State Funding Operating & Capital Budget Reports

B. Reduced PO&M Budget Operating & Capital Budget Reports

C. Reduced PO&M Budget Operating & Capital Budget Reports

D. Reduced PO&M Budget Operating & Capital Budget Reports

E. Reduction in PO&M Staff Work Order Tracking & Reporting System

ATTACHMENT A

© ets, Inc. / CTi 1990 - 2008 Page 4


IMPROVE

8. List the countermeasure(s) you considered for implementation for each selected root cause from the “Analyze” steps “A” – “D”.

A. The PO&M department has no control over the amount of the annual budget. The department has control over how the budget is spread over department activities. If funding shortfalls continue the 2nd half of 2008/ 2009 and 2009 / 2010 school years, then the budget allocation may have to be allocated to critical operation and maintenance functions. In addition to shifting budget to high priority process, use the DMAIC process to improve the cycle time and reduce waste of each repair center. As a last resort, move staff from less-important processes to repair center teams. If that does not work, request that more funding be shifted from other operations accounts to plant operations and maintenance and remove the hiring freeze and lift the restrictions for the use of over time.

B. The PO&M department has control over the use of its maintenance staff.

9. Determine the “effectiveness x feasibility” score for each countermeasure, and note the highest scores. See attached countermeasure matrix.

Root Cause Effectiveness Feasibility Overall Action

(Hint: Refer to six sigma DMAIC course, checkpoint #18 of the “Improve” step.)

10. Develop an action plan for each countermeasure to be implemented which shows the following: What (description of countermeasure) When (projected start and end dates) Who (accountable person) Which organizations need to support you Estimated cost to implement See attached countermeasure action plan matrix and action plans.

(Remember: Email your action plan(s) with this completed DMAIC “Lite” Storyboard, per instructions on page 1.)

ATTACHMENT A

© ets, Inc. / CTi 1990 - 2008 Page 5


CONTROL

11. Briefly explain how you know the root causes were reduced or eliminated.

Cannot reduce or eliminate budget shortfalls because the budget is controlled by the District. One will know that the root causes have been reduced or eliminated when a plan has been developed to redeploy maintenance staff to high priority health and safety work orders, a service standard is published, and the purchasing cycle time improvement project is complete.

12. Briefly explain how you know the problem was reduced.

When the number of Type 1 and Type 9 work order and backlogged work orders per month shows a downward trend over a three month period and the PM work orders increase.

13. Briefly explain how you know the theme measure was improved.

When the number of PM work orders per month shows a upward trend over a three month period.

14. Explain how you will prevent this problem from recurring.

Consistently monitor monthly backlog reports and re-deploy maintenance staff as soon as possible.

15. Identify which other BPS locations should consider implementing your countermeasures.

The countermeasures used in this project are being applied to all types of work orders.

16. Identify what other BPS locations could learn from this project.

N/A

17. List the remaining problem areas in this process.

Reduced budgets and resources are a problem.

18. List the key lessons learned from this process improvement.

To develop a flexible maintenance organization that can be easily re-organized to meet an ever changing operations budget.

ATTACHMENT A

© ets, Inc. / CTi 1990 - 2008 Page 6

FACILITIES OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE PRIORITY PROCESS SELECTION MATRIX FORM

Selection Factor Macro Key Work Processes Importance x Gap = Point Score Priority Rank

Monitor Facility Operational Systems 5 3 15 3

Perform Preventative Maintenance 5 4 20 2

Process Work Orders 5 5 25 1

SCALE: 5 = Extreme 4 = High 3 = Moderate 2 = Low 1 = None

ATTACHMENT A

© ets, Inc. / CTi 1990 - 2008 Page 7

KEY IN-PROCESS MEASURES DETERMINATION FORM Outcome Measures In-Process Measures

Q1. Operational Cost Per GSF (Annual) . 1. Operational Cost Per Month (P9)

Q2. Maintenance Cost Per GSF (Annual)

1. Maintenance Cost Per Month (P10)

1. Operational Cost Per Month (P9) Q3. Total O&M Cost Per GSF (Annual)

2. Maintenance Cost Per Month (P10) 1. PM Work Performed Per Month (P2) 2. School Generated W/O Per Month (P3) 3. Misc Facility Generated W/O Per Month (P4)

Q4. PM and W/O Activity Per Year

4. PO&M Generated W/O Per Month (P5)

1. School Generated W/O Per Month (P3)

2. Misc Facility Generated W/O Per Month (P4) Q5. Work Order Backlog Per Year

3. PO&M Generated W/O Per Month (P5) 1. PM Work Performed Per Month (P2) 2. School Generated W/O Per Month (P3) 3. Misc Facility Generated W/O Per Month (P4)

Q6. PM / Service W/O Ration

4. PO&M Generated W/O Per Month (P5)

1. Misc Facility Generated W/O Per Month (P4) Q7. PO&M / Facility Generated W/O Ration 2. PO&M Generated W/O Per Month (P5)

ATTACHMENT A

© ets, Inc. / CTi 1990 - 2008 Page 8

BPS Process Management System

Work System: Plant Operations and Maintenance Leader: Walt Petters

Owner Members Priority Processes Name Email Name Email

1.

2.

3. 1. Monitor Operational Systems

4.

1.

2.

3. 2.

Perform Preventative Maintenance (PM) Work

4.

1.

2.

3. 3. Process Work Orders

4.

1.

2.

3.

4.

1.

2.

3.

4.

1.

2.

3.

4.

Macro Process Control System Process Name: Facilities Operations and Maintenance Process Owner: Walt Petters Process Customer: The School Board of Brevard County, representing staff, students, parents and the community Critical Customer Requirements:

Current Sigma Level: TBD Process Purpose: Provide cost effective operation and maintenance of clean, healthy and safe educational facilities Outcome Indicators: Q1 – Q7

Process and Quality Indicators Checking / Indicator Monitoring Process

Indicators Control Limits Data to Collect

Timeframe (Frequency) Responsibility

Quality Indicators

Specs/ Targets

What is Checking Item or Indicator Calculation

When to Collect Data?

Who will Check?

Contingency Plans / Miscellaneous Actions Required for Exceptions Procedure References

P1 Operational Systems Monitoring Target: 99% Uptime Baseline: 100% Energy Management Systems Daily EMS Personnel Transfer more FTE to this task.

P2 Preventative Maintenance (PM) Work Orders per Month

Target: Reduce Backlog by 20% Baseline: 128 Monthly Activity Report Monthly

End of month W. Petters J. Hudson Transfer more FTE to this task.

P3 School-Generated Work Orders per Month

Target: Reduce # ≥ 30D by 10% Baseline: 875 Monthly Activity Report Monthly


P4 Service W/O Per Month Target: Reduce # by 10% Baseline: 398 Monthly Activity Report Monthly


P5 PO&M-Generated Work Orders per Month

Target: Increase # by 20% Baseline: 458 Monthly Activity Report Monthly


P6 # of Work Orders Opened / Closed per Month

Target: Reduce Cycle Time by 10% Baseline: 23D Monthly Activity Report Monthly


P7 # Backlogged Work Orders per Month Target: Reduce Backlog by 10% Baseline: 6500 Monthly Activity Report Monthly


P8 Aging W/O Per Month Target: Reduce Backlog > 30D by 20% Baseline: CY 2007 = 3354 W/O Monthly Activity Report Monthly


P9 Plant Operations Cost Per Month Target: Below state average and 25th percentile of peer districts Baseline: $159,441

Statewide Ops. & Maint. Cost Data from FDOE; Budget Data from Peer Districts

Monthly End of month

W.Petters Managers

Analyze the distribution of the operations budget across all cost centers and look for opportunities for process improvements.

P10 Maintenance Cost Per Month Target: Below state average and 25th percentile of peer districts Baseline: $419,176



W.Petters Managers

Analyze the distribution of the maintenance budget across all cost centers and look for opportunities for process improvements

Q1 Plant Operational Cost Per GSF (Annual) Target: Below state average and 25th percentile of peer districts Baseline: $0.16


Yearly June 30

W.Petters Managers

Analyze the distribution of the operations budget per GSF for all schools and look for opportunities for process improvements

Q2 Maintenance Cost Per GSF (Annual) Target: Below state average and 25th percentile of peer districts Baseline: $0.43


Yearly June 30

W.Petters Managers

Analyze the distribution of the maintenance budget per GSF for all schools and look for opportunities for process improvements

Q3 Total PO&M Cost Per GSF (Annual) Target: Below state average and 25th percentile of peer districts Baseline: $0.59


Yearly April 1

W.Petters Managers

See contingency plans for P9 & P10 and Q1 and Q2.

Q4 PM and W/O Activity Per Year Target: Below state average and 25th percentile of peer districts Baseline: 10,960 / 46,132

Yearly Summary Report Yearly April 1

W. Petters J. Hudson See contingency plans for P2 – P8.

And

Macro Process Control System Process Name: Facilities Operations and Maintenance Process Owner: Walt Petters Process Customer: The School Board of Brevard County, representing staff, students, parents and the community Critical Customer Requirements:

Current Sigma Level: TBD Process Purpose: Provide cost effective operation and maintenance of clean, healthy and safe educational facilities Outcome Indicators: Q1 – Q7




Quality Indicators

Specs/ Targets



Who will Check?


Q5 Work Order Backlog Per Year Target: Reduce Mo Backlog By 20% Baseline: CY 2007 = 6500 Yearly Summary Report Yearly

April 1 W. Petters J. Hudson See contingency plans for P2 – P8.

Q6 PM / Service W/O Ratio

Target: Ratio ≥ 3 Baseline: 2.268 Monthly Activity Report Monthly

End of month W. Petters J. Hudson See contingency plans for P2 – P8.

Q7 PO&M / Service W/O Ratio Target: Ratio ≥ 100% Baseline: 75.51% Monthly Activity Report Monthly


Q8 PM Work Order Backlog Target: EOFY Backlog ≤ 150 Baseline: 128 Monthly Activity Report Monthly


Approved:

Date:

Rev #:

Rev Date:

And

KWP 2 Perform Preventative Maintenance Process Control System Process Name: Manage Preventative Maintenance Process Owner: Walt Petters Process Customer: The School Board of Brevard County, representing staff, students, parents and the community Critical Customer Requirements:

Current Sigma Level: TBD Process Purpose: Provide cost effective processing of school and ancillary work orders. Outcome Indicators: Macro Q4 and Q6




Quality Indicators

Specs/ Targets



Who will Check?


P2.1 # PM Work Orders per Month. Target: Increase Baseline by 10% Baseline: 913

Tracking the number of W/O Requests that are submitted and rejected after evaluation.


W. Petters J. Hudson Transfer more FTE to this task.

P3 Work Orders Opened Per Month Target: Reduce # by 10% Baseline: 1775 per Month

TMA Data Base Monthly End of month


P4 Work Orders Closed Per Month Target: Increase # by 20% (437) Baseline: 397

TMA Data Base Monthly End of month


Q4 PM and W/O Activity Per Year Target: Increase PM W/O By 20% and Reduce Routine and Service W/O By 20% Baseline: PM 10,960 / All Others 46,132

TMA Data Base Yearly April 1

W. Petters J. Hudson See contingency plans for P1 – P4

Q5 Work Order Backlog Per Year Target: Reduce Backlog By 20% (4288) Baseline: 5360

TMA Data Base Yearly April 1


Q7 PM / Service W/O Ration Target: Ratio 3 Baseline: 2.268

Calculation Using Information From TMA Data Base



Approved:

Date:

Rev #:

Rev Date:

And

PO&M Work Order Analysis

39000

40000

41000

42000

43000

44000

45000

46000

47000

Reporting Years

Wor

k O

rder

s Pe

r Yea

r

# Opened # Closed

# Opened 41582 43578 45344 45168

# Closed 41854 42539 46326 45434

FY 05/06 FY 06/07 FY 07/08 FY 08/09

Note: FY 08-09 is a calculated number using the eight months of the fiscal year and forecasting the remainder of the year.

TYPE 1 / 2 / 4 / 9 OPEN WORK ORDER ANALYSIS

7,606

10,16412,247

10,467

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

2006 2007 2008 2009

REPORTING YEARS

WO

RK

OR

DER

S PE

R Y

EAR

Type1 Type 2 Type 9 Type 4

Type1 3,225 4,412 5,029 5,111 3,407

Type 2 7,606 10,164 12,247 10,467 6,978

Type 9 9,164 7,711 5,248 4,980 3,320

Type 4 17,722 16,976 20,071 20,915

Jun-06 Jun-07 Jun-08 Jun-09

PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE ANALYSIS - OPENED W/O

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

REPORTING MONTHS

WO

RK

OR

DER

S PE

R M

ON

TH

PM Opened PM Opened Baseline PM Opened Target

PM Opened 267 597 600 486 425 872

PM Opened Baseline 594 594 594 594 594 594

PM Opened Target 713 713 713 713 713 713

Jul-08 Aug-08 Sep-08 Oct-08 Nov-08 Feb 09 (AVG)

Baseline = 594

Target = 713

PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE ANALYSIS - CLOSE W/O

455

334

426

349 359

826

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

REPORTING MONTHS

CLO

SED

W/O

PER

MO

NTH

PM Closed PM Closed Baseline PM Closure Target

PM Closed 455 334 426 349 359 826

PM Closed Baseline 385 385 385 385 385 385

PM Closure Target 462 462 462 462 462 462

Jul-08 Aug-08 Sep-08 Oct-08 Nov-08 Feb 09 (AVG)

Baseline = 385

Target = 462

PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE BACKLOG ANALYSIS

-188

263

174

137

6647

-250

-200

-150

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Jul-08 Aug-08 Sep-08 Oct-08 Nov-08 Dec-08 Jan-09 Feb-09

REPORTING MONTHS

BA

CK

LOG

W/O

PER

MO

NTH

PM Backlog PM Backlog Baseline PM Backlog Target

Due to carryover from previous fiscal year, more PM W/Os were closed than opened this period.

PM backlog equals number opened minus number closed.

Baseline = 128

PM & SERVICE W/O ANALYSIS

7,606

10,164

12,247

10,467

3,225

4,4125,029 5,111

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

Jul-0

6Aug

-06Sep

-06Oct-

06Nov

-06Dec

-06Ja

n-07

Feb-07

Mar-07

Apr-07

May-07

Jun-0

7Ju

l-07

Aug-07

Sep-07

Oct-07

Nov-07

Dec-07

Jan-0

8Feb

-08Mar-

08Apr-

08May

-08Ju

n-08

Jul-0

8Aug

-08Sep

-08Oct-

08Nov

-08Dec

-08Ja

n-09

Feb-09

REPORTING YEARS

W/O

PER

YEA

R

PM W/O Service W/O

PM / SERVICE W/O RATIO ANALYSIS

2.358 2.3042.435

2.048

3 3 3 3

0.000

0.500

1.000

1.500

2.000

2.500

3.000

3.500

Jul-0

6Sep

-06Nov

-06Ja

n-07

Mar-07

May-07

Jul-0

7Sep

-07Nov

-07Ja

n-08

Mar-08

May-08

Jul-0

8Sep

-08Nov

-08Ja

n-09

REPORTING YEARS

RA

TIO

PER

YEA

R

PM/Service Ratio Ratio Baseline Ratio Target

PM/Service Ratio 2.358 2.304 2.435 2.048

Ratio Baseline 2.268 2.268 2.268 2.268

Ratio Target 3 3 3 3

Jul-06 Jul-07 Jul-08 Feb-09

Baseline: 2.268

Target = 3

PO&M OVERTIME USAGE ANALYSIS

0.00

5,000.00

10,000.00

15,000.00

20,000.00

25,000.00

30,000.00

35,000.00

40,000.00

REPORTING YEARS

O/T

HO

UR

S PE

R Y

EAR

Overtime Hours Per Year

Overtime Hours Per Year 23,597.29 31,408.79 37,321.49 32,438.34 9,912.8

FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09

Note: FY 08-09 is a calculated number using the first six months of the fiscal year and forecasting the second six months of overtime hours.

MAINTENANCE STAFFING PROFILE 1999 - 2009

170 170

187 188

179

166 166170 172

176

152

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

200

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

REPORTING YEARS

FTE

PER

YEA

R

Maintenance FTE FTE Baseline

Baseline - 172 FTE

OPERATING BUDGET 1997 to 2008

$300,000,000

$325,000,000

$350,000,000

$375,000,000

$400,000,000

$425,000,000

$450,000,000

$475,000,000

$500,000,000

$525,000,000

$550,000,000

$575,000,000

$600,000,000

$625,000,000

97=98 98=99 99=00 00=01 01=02 02=03 03=04 04=05 05=06 06=07 07=08 08=09*

REPORTING YEARS

Operating Budget

SPENDING BY SCHOOL BOARD ON OPERATIONS 1998 - 2009

$0

$200,000,000

$400,000,000

$600,000,000

$800,000,000

$1,000,000,000

$1,200,000,000

$1,400,000,000

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

REPORTING MONTHS

$$ P

ER Y

EAR

Amended Budget Operating Budget

Annual Overtime Analysis (Total Hours)

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Reporting Years

Hou

rs P

er Y

ear

O/T Hours

O/T Hours 1789.89 3442.25 5273.71 4427.9 845

FY 04/05 FY 05/06 FY 06/07 FY 07/08 FY 08/09

Work Order Per Maintenance FTE Analysis

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Reporting Years

# W

/O P

er F

TEMaintenance FTE W/O Per FTE

Maintenance FTE 170 172 176 152

W/O Per FTE 245 253 258 297

2006 2007 2008 2009

PO&M PM Work Orders Per FTE Profile

.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

Reporting Years

PM W

/O p

er F

TE

Type 2 W/O Per FTE Baseline

Type 2 W/O Per FTE 18.97 25.65 28.57 22.41

Baseline 23.90 23.90 23.90 23.90

FY 05/06 FY 06/07 FY 07/08 FY 08/09 YTD

EEZZ DDMMAAIICC 2200 CCHHEECCKKPPOOIINNTTSS DDEEFFIINNEE MMEEAASSUURREE AANNAALLYYZZEE IIMMPPRROOVVEE CCOONNTTRROOLL

PPllaann DDoo CChheecckk AAcctt

EZDMAICSM is a registered Service Mark of ets Inc. ~ Copyright 2009, ets Inc. Page 1

Macro Process Name: Manage Facilities Plant Operations and Maintenance Key Work Process: KWP2 – Perform Preventative Maintenance

Work System / Leader: Ed Curry Process Owner: Walt Petters DMAIC Status: Improve Cycle: Yes Refine Cycle: No

DEFINE

1. The stakeholder and need were identified. Yes: X No: Rating: 5 Comment: Internal and external customers were identified.

2. An indicator measuring our performance in meeting the need was developed. Yes: X No: Rating: 5

Comment: A Q Measure Q5 – Work Order (W/O) Backlog per Year and In Process Indicators P3.1 – P8.1 were developed and tracked.

3. A theme statement consistent with the indicator was selected. Yes: X No: Rating: 5 Comment: Yes the theme statement is consistent with Q4 and In Process indicators P3.1 – P8.1

Rating Legend:

5 = Checkpoint Fully Satisfied / 4 = Meets Most Criteria of Checkpoint / 3 = Meets Minimal Requirement of Checkpoint 2 = Checkpoint Somewhat/Partially Satisfied / 1 = Checkpoint Not Addressed




MEASURE

4. The theme was stratified from various viewpoints and a significant problem was chosen. Yes: X No: Rating: 5

Comment: The theme was stratified into six problems. Each problem was analyzed during a brainstorming session with the significant problem chosen – “The number of scheduled Type 2 preventative maintenance work orders has dropped because of the increase in the number of Type 1 Service and Type 9 Corrective Maintenance work orders. .”

5. A target for improvement was established based on the stakeholder's need and its impact on the theme indicator was determined. Yes: X No: Rating: 5

Comment: A target has been established to reduce the Type 1 and Type 2 work order backlogs by 10% and to increase the number of Type 2 (PM) work orders by 20%.

6. A problem statement that addressed the gap between the actual and target values was developed. Yes: X No: Rating: 5

Comment: Actual and target gap values have been identified. See KWP Macro EZDMAIC for the work order backlog (aging) gap. The PM Gap: “The Type 2 W/O gap between FY 07/08 (Actual) and FY 08/09 (Forecast) is 2,341. The PM W/O per FTE gap between FY 07/08 and FY 08/09 is 6.16 PM W/O per FTE. These gaps will continue to grow as additional School Board of Brevard County operating budget cuts continue in FY 09/010.

Rating Legend:





ANALYZE

7. Potential causes most likely to have the greatest impact on the problem were selected. Yes: X No: Rating: 5

Comment: Six potential causes were selected: Reduced operating budget, Reduced staffing, Reduced use of overtime, Reduced or elimination of filling vacant positions and Increase in Type 1 and Type 9 Work Orders.

8. A relationship between the root causes and the problem was verified with data. Yes: X No: Rating: 5

Comment: Three of the six root causes were verified by data. See attached Macro Data Charts. 9. Root causes were selected and the impact of each root cause on the gap was

determined. Yes: No: Rating: 5

Comment: The impact of the root cause was determined. The root causes that are related to school district budget reductions will not improve until the additional operational funding is increased to pre fiscal year 06/07 funding levels. The root causes related to the increase in Type 1 and Type 9 work orders have an impact on the gap. Rating Legend:





IMPROVE

10. Countermeasures were selected to address verified root causes. Yes: X No: Rating: 5

Comment: Five countermeasures were developed.

1. Shifted funding from other district operations accounts to plant operations and maintenance accounts.

2. Redistribute PO&M department budget from non critical functions to critical operation and maintenance functions.

3. Move staff from less-important processes to repair center teams.

4. Deploy work order backlog reduction process improvement to free up resources to perform preventative maintenance.

5. Supervisors to add more PM work orders into TMA CMMS.

11. The method for selecting the appropriate practical methods was clear and considered effectiveness and feasibility. Yes: X No: Rating: 5

Comment: An effectiveness and feasibility matrix was used to select which countermeasures to deploy. Practical methods were developed for each counter measure by using a brainstorming session. See Macro Storyboard package for effectiveness and feasibility matrix. Because of the reduction of State funding of schools, countermeasure number one was not feasible to deploy. Countermeasures two through five were deployed.

IMPROVE

12. The action plan reflected accountability, schedule, and cost, and was implemented. Yes: X No: Rating: 5

Comment: An overall action plan was developed that incorporated all countermeasures. A countermeasure action plan matrix was developed which shows deployment accountability, schedule and associated cost.

Rating Legend:





CONTROL

13. [Results] The effect of countermeasure on the root causes was demonstrated. Yes: X No: Rating: 5

Comment: As of March 11, 2009, the preventative maintenance work order closure rate, for the nine (9) PO&M Repair centers range between 59.15% to 124.92% with only one repair center exhibiting a closure rate less than 85%. As of March 11, 2009, the cycle time to open and close work orders for each of the nine (9) repair centers ranges between 23.22 to 114.92 days. See box score below.

The data associated with Repair Center EH&S will be analyzed looking for opportunities to reduce cyle time and improve the closure rate.

14. [Results] The effect of countermeasures on the problem was demonstrated. Yes: X No: Rating: 5

Comment: As of March 11, 2009, a Type 1 and Type 9 work order downward trend has continued. The rate of PM work orders being added from month to month has increased as planned but not a a level to continue the annual upward trend started in FY 05/06. See attached charts. 15. [Results] The improvement target was achieved and causes of significant variation were

addressed. Yes: No: X Rating: 5

Comment: The deployment, of the countermeasure to increase the number of PM work orders, has started a short term upward trend that has exceeded the target of 570 open PM work orders. All procedures are in place to contunue the upward trend. See sttached charts. 16. [Results] The effect of countermeasures on the theme indicator representing the

stakeholder’s need was demonstrated. Yes: X No: Rating:

Comment: Theme Statement: “The number of Preventative Maintenance (Type 2) work orders have decreased because the number of Service (Type 1) and Corrective Maintenance (Type 9) work orders have increased since the School Board of Brevard County budget cuts started in the 2007/2008 fiscal year.” The attached charts clearly shows that the countermeasure is having an effect on the theme statement.

PM WORK ORDER PROCESSING BOX SCORE 08/09Repair Center # Created # Closed Cycle Time % ClosedArea 1 413 415 32.4 100.48%Area 2 247 222 36.2 89.88%Area 3 385 334 38.13 86.75%Area 4 383 343 44.58 89.56%Central HVAC 1393 1214 71.56 87.15%Central Services 301 376 59.36 124.92%Custodial Services 2028 2005 23.22 98.87%EH&S 235 139 114.92 59.15%Grounds 1584 1552 35.9 97.98%

Grand Total = 6969 6600 456.27 834.73%Average = 774.33 733.33 50.70 92.75%

PM Work orders between 7/1/08 – 3/11/09




CONTROL

17. [Standardization] A method was established to document, permanently change, and communicate the revised process or standard, and was implemented. Yes: No: X Rating: 3

Comment: The countermeasure method has been communicated verbally to all maintenance supervisors. The countermeasure method has not been documented to permanently change and communicate the revised process. The best method to document the improvement is under consideration. 18. [Standardization] Specific areas for replication were identified, and an action plan was

developed to promote organizational learning. Yes: X No: Rating: 5

Comment: This checkpoint was analyzed. The countermeasure has been standardized across all nine repair centers.

19. [Future Plans] Any remaining problems of the theme were addressed. Yes: X No: Rating: 5

Comment: There are no remaining problems associated with the theme. Preventative Maintenance work orders are reviewed each month by each of the nine repair center supervisors. Corrective and preventative actions are taken when negative trends are noted. See PO&M Monthly Overview report.

CONTROL

20. [Future Plans] Lessons learned, P-D-C-A of the ets Six Sigma DMAIC Method, and team growth were assessed and documented. Yes: X No: Rating: 4

Comment: The problem solving activity to improve the theme occurred over numerous brainstorming and data analysis sessions. Data was examined from varying view points to understand the problem and gap. Lessons learned were discussed but not documented. The PO&M operation uses a Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS) to schedule and track preventative maintenance activities. Data can be collected at all levels of the preventative maintenance cycle. Currently PO&M is working with TMA Systems to modify the CMMS to drill down the data collection to give the system uses more drop-down window choices when entering maintenance data. The monthly maintenance overview report is distributed to all Facilities managers and school district administrators. The report is a useful tool to identify problem trends and to inform stakeholders about maintenance activities that affect this school site or facilities infrastructure.

Rating Legend: 5 = Checkpoint Fully Satisfied / 4 = Meets Most Criteria of Checkpoint / 3 = Meets Minimal Requirement of Checkpoint 2 = Checkpoint Somewhat/Partially Satisfied / 1 = Checkpoint Not Addressed

perform preventative maintenance (pm) work process...

Documents