performance management presentation provide basic animal life support

1

Performance Management Presentation

Provide Basic Animal Life Support

Team Members:

Eileen Morgan, Dr. Charmaine Foltz, Jim Weed, Dennis Barnard, Andy Limerick, Alphie Cisar, Brent Morse, Wayne O'Brien, Sonia Love

ORS National Institutes of Health

14 January, 2005

2

Table of Contents

Main Presentation

Performance Management Plan

Customer PerspectiveC1a: AAALAC accreditation ratingsC1b: ACUC inspection ratings by typeC2c: Percentage of non-exempt animal census requiring socializationC2d: Percentage of attempted socializations that were successfulC3a: ORS Customer Scorecard ratings for animal husbandry and

clinical veterinary and technical services

Internal Business Process PerspectiveIB1a: Investigator response time to notifications of health statusIB1b: Percentage of holding agreements processed by beginning of

fiscal year

3

Table of Contents (cont.)

Main Presentation

Learning and Growth PerspectiveLG1a: Percentage of staff with desired credentials LG2a: Percentage of technicians fully trained on all procedures by

facilityLG2b: Percentage of facilities with one fully trained technician

Financial PerspectiveF1a: Unit cost of animal husbandry servicesF1b: Unit cost of clinical veterinary and technical servicesF1c: Unit cost of special environmental factors servicesF2a: Overall percentage of available housing utilizedF2b: Overall percentage increase in holding capacityF3a: Percentage dollar savings associated with caging purchase

strategy change

Conclusions

Appendix

4

Performance Management Plan

Eileen Morgan and Dr. Charmaine Foltz

Jim Weed, Dennis Barnard, Andy Smith, Alphie Cisar, Brent Morse, Wayne O'Brien, Sonia Love

Date: 1/10/05

Team Members

Service Strategy

Value PropositionBasic Life Support Services contributes to the advancement of NIH intramural research by providing reliable animal care and veterinary services as well as unique support services delivered by professional and credible personnel trusted to uphold AAALAC international standards.

Team Leaders

We will deliver to our customers a combination of high quality, cost-effective, and consistent reliable services. We will focus on enhancing the skills set of our workforce, streamlining business processes to improve timeliness and foster positive customer relationships.

Strategy Description

Performance Management Plan (PMP)

DS3: Control special environmental factors for animals

DS2: Perform clinical veterinary and technical services

DS1: Provide animal husbandry services

Discrete Services

Division Approval/Date: Associate Director Approval/Date:

Provide basic animal life support

Service Group

Operational Excellence

Customer Intimacy

Product Leadership

Growth

Sustain

Harvest

5

Relationship Among Performance Objectives

--- relationship between objectives in different perspectives

___ relationship between objectives within a perspective

most important objectives

C3: Increase Customer Satisfacton

CU

ST

OM

ER

FIN

AN

CIA

L

INT

ER

NA

L

BU

SIN

ES

S

LE

AR

NIN

G &

G

RO

WT

H

IB2: Ensure consistent reliable

services

F1: Minimize unit cost

LG2: Improve consistency of service

performance across facilities

LG1: Maintain and enhance staff competencies

PROVIDE BASIC ANIMAL LIFE SUPPORT

IB1: Improve timeliness of services

Date: December 19, 2003

C1: Maintain a high quality of animal care, veterinary

services and animal facilities with AALAC recommendations

C2: Demonstrate value of unique support services to

customers and stakeholders (perception)

F2: Maximize utilization of assets

F2: Maximize cost effectiveness of

purchases

6

Customer Perspective

7


Objective Measure FY04 Target FY05 Target FY06 Target Initiative Owner

C1a: AAALAC accreditation ratings

Maintain accreditation



Track and monitor periodically

Morgan and Foltz

C1b: ACUC inspection ratings by type

Receive zero major defects



Track and monitor semi-annually

Morgan

C1: Maintain a high quality of animal care, veterinary services, and animal facilities consistent with AAALAC recommendations

8

C1a: AAALAC Accreditation Ratings

FY02 fully accredited

with commendations

for DVR

FY99 fully accredited

FY93 all of NIH fully accredited; DVR falls under that accreditation

DVR continuously accredited since 1960s

Note: AAALAC site visits are tri-annual

1960s FY02FY99FY93

9

15

77

46

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Major Defects

MinorRequests/Complaints

Commendations

FY04

C1b: ACUC Inspection Results by Type

Note: Minor requests are not necessarily deficiencies, but rather suggestions.

10

Customer Perspective (cont.)


C2c: For control special environmental factors, percentage of non-exempt animal census requiring socialization

Comparison to FY03 results

TBD TBD Track and monitor quarterly. Take action as dictated by results.

Weed

C2d: For control special environmental factors, percentage of attempted socializations that were successful



Weed

C2: Demonstrate Value of Unique Support Services to Customers and Stakeholders

11

C2c: Percentage of Non-Exempt Animal Census Requiring Socialization

1,052

584

1,047

526

1,058

484

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600

Non-Exempt AnimalCensus

AttemptedSocializations

FY02

FY03

FY04

FY04 56% of the non-exempt animal census were socialized



Number of Animals

12

C2d: Percentage of Attempted Socializations That Were Successful

584

475

526

444

484

436

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

AttemptedSocializations

SuccessfulSocializations

FY02

FY03

FY04

FY04 81% of the attempted socializations were successful



Number of Animals

13



C3: Increase Customer Satisfaction

C3a: ORS Customer Scorecard ratings for animal husbandry and clinical veterinary and technical services

Improvement in ratings on comparable discrete services surveyed in previous years

TBD TBD Conduct survey in FY04 Q3

Morgan and Foltz

14

Customer Scorecard Methodology

• In FY04, modified ORS Customer Scorecard for animal husbandry and clinical veterinary and technical services

15

C3a: Customer Scorecard Ratings for Animal Husbandry and Clinical Veterinary and Technical Services

• Survey was distributed via email to APDs and PIs.• Data Collection began May 28, 2004.• Reminder emails sent June 11, 2004 and July 1,

2004.• Data collection ended July 20, 2004.• 20% response rate (N = 18 out of 92)• 39% (N = 7) were APDs and 61% (N = 11) were

PIs

16

C3a: Overall Satisfaction ratings with Animal Husbandry Services during the past 12 months

7.39

6.89

7.61

7.72

7.5

7.11

7.72

7.33

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Handling of Problems

Competence

Convenience

Responsiveness

Availability

Reliability

Timeliness

Quality

Unsatisfactory Outstanding

N = 18

17

C3a: Overall Satisfaction ratings with Clinical Veterinary and Technical Services during the past 12 months

7.64

7.36

7.71

7.5

7.71

7.86

7.86

8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Handling of Problems

Competence

Convenience

Responsiveness

Availability

Reliability

Timeliness

Quality

Unsatisfactory Outstanding

N = 14

18

Customer Perspective Summary

• ACUC ratings included 46 commendations, 77 minor requests, and 15 major deficiencies

• Attempted socializations of non-human primates increased from 50% to 56% in FY04

• 81% of the attempted socializations were successful• Customer survey was completed in July, FY04. The

overall mean on customer satisfaction for animal husbandry is 7.4 and for clinical veterinary and technical is 7.7. These means are about 2 points above FY02 ratings for each of the services.

19

Customer Perspective Planned Actions

• ACUC semi-annual reviews of program and facilities ongoing; Strive to minimize major deficiencies

• Increase percentages of attempted and successful socializations for non-human primates

• Customer survey is currently planned to be repeated FY06 to maximize response

20

Internal Business Process Perspective

21



IB1a: Investigator response time to notifications of health status

N/A TBD TBD Track and monitor quarterly. Take action as dictated by results.

Morse, Love

IB1b: Percentage of holding agreements processed by beginning of fiscal year

100% 100% 100% Track and monitor annually. Take action as dictated by results.

Morgan

IB1c: Average number of days to receive quality assurance test results on feed

TBD TBD TBD Working Group will review results and gather benchmark information for presentation to Advisory Team for their consideration on how DVR should handle quality assurance of feed and bedding going forward.

Barnard

IB1: Improve timeliness of service

22

IB1a: Investigator Response Time to Notifications of Health Status

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

April

May

June Ju

ly

August

Septe

mber

Pe

rce

nta

ge

% Response in 24 hours % Responded

Note: Data gathered from building 14C

23

IB1b: Percentage of Holding Agreements Processed by Beginning of Fiscal Year (as of 30 Sept)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

* FY03 FY04 FY05

Note: Zero percentage of holding agreements were processed by beginning of fiscal year in FY03

24

Internal Business Process PerspectiveSummary

• Of Investigators who responded, 86% responded within 24 hours

• 56% of Investigators responded• Holding agreements processed by first day in

fiscal year continues to be 100%

25

Internal Business Process PerspectivePlanned Actions

• Response time by PI’s will continue to be monitored to ensure appropriate veterinary care

• Continue 100% success at processing holding agreements by beginning of FY

26

Learning and Growth Perspective

27



LG1: Maintain and enhance competencies for the future DVR

LG1a: Percentage of staff with desired credentials


TBD TBD Identify improvements and implement. Annual

Morgan and Foltz

LG2a: Percentage of technicians fully trained on all procedures by facility

Pilot Results TBD TBD Implement data collection in all facilities. Track and monitor semi-annually. Take action as dictated by results.

Morgan

LG2b: Percentage of facilities with one fully trained technician

Pilot Results TBD TBD Implement data collection in all facilities. Track and monitor semi-annually. Take action as dictated by results.

Morgan

LG2: Improve consistency of service performance across facilities

28

LG1a: Percentage of Staff with Desired Credentials

70%

50%

55%

75% 75% 75%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

FY02 FY03 FY04

Veterinarians (ACLAM Boarded) Facility Management Branch (LATG Certified)

29

LG2a: Percentage of Technicians Fully Trained on all Procedures by Facility (Small Animals)

• 80% of technicians are fully trained on all procedures in sample facilities

• Technician’s in sample facilities are trained on 95% of proficiencies• Note: Facilities include 10A, 127/128, 28ICU, 28

D wing, 14 F/G

30

LG2b: Percentage of Facilities with One Fully Trained Technician (Small Animals)

• 100% of facilities have one trained technician in all competencies listed.• Note: Facilities include 10A, 127/128, 28ICU, 28

D wing, 14 F/G

31

Learning and Growth PerspectiveSummary

• Staff credentials• Recruiting and retaining veterinarians with ACLAM

board certification challenging• Facility managers maintained AALAS LATG

certification status

• Technical proficiency • Data was obtained on 56% of small animal

facilities where 80% of technicians are fully trained on all procedures and 100% of the facilities have one fully trained technician.

32

Learning and Growth PerspectivePlanned Actions

• Credentials• Strive to obtain and retain board certified

veterinarians in all new hires• Encourage facility management personnel to

obtain LATG certification• Technical training proficiency

• Data collected on small animal facilities will be expanded to include all small animal facilities

• Tracking will begin in FY05 on large animal proficiencies

33

Financial Perspective

34



F1a: For animal husbandry services, cost per cage day (number of cage days /budget)

Baseline TBD TBD Track and monitor quarterly

Morgan, Foltz, and Green

F1b: For clinical veterinary and technical services, cost per animal census (number in animal census/budget)



F1c: For special environmental factors, cost per unit (number of units/budget)



F1: Minimize unit cost of each discrete service

35

F1a: Animal Husbandry Unit Cost

$1.83 $1.82

$1.50

$1.60

$1.70

$1.80

$1.90

$2.00

FY03 FY04

Unit Cost

36

F1b: Clinical Veterinary and Technical Services Unit Cost

$10.33

$11.25

$9.00

$9.50

$10.00

$10.50

$11.00

$11.50

$12.00

FY03 FY04

Unit Cost

37

F1c: Special Environmental Factors Unit Cost

$10.75

$14.36

$0.00

$2.00

$4.00

$6.00

$8.00

$10.00

$12.00

$14.00

$16.00

FY03 FY04

Unit Cost

38

Financial Perspective (cont)


F2a: Overall percentage increase in holding capacity



Morgan and Foltz

F2b: Overall percentage increase in available housing utilized



Morgan and Foltz


39

F2a: Overall Percentage Increase in Available Housing Utilized

2.73%

8.07%

1%

3%

5%

7%

9%

11%

FY03 FY04

Percentage

Note: Includes all housing available for all animals. Individual building and animal percentages are presented in separate graphs in the Appendix.

5.34%

2.73%

40

F2b: Overall Percentage Increase in Holding Capacity

7.91%

11.11%

1%

3%

5%

7%

9%

11%

FY03 FY04

Percentage

Note: Includes all housing available for all animals. Individual building and animal percentages are presented in separate graphs in the Appendix.

3.20%

7.91%

41

Financial Perspective (cont)


F3: Maximize cost-effectiveness of purchases

F3a: Percentage dollar savings associated with selected purchase strategy changes and implemented process improvements

Calculated dollar savings in rack purchases, feed and bedding

TBD TBD Identify improvements in purchase strategies. Implement change. Track and monitor annually.

Morgan

42

F3a: Percentage Dollar Savings in Caging and Equipment Purchases

• In FY02, identified bulk purchasing as potential improvement to streamline purchasing process

27%

23% 22%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

FY02 FY03 FY04

Pe

rce

nta

ge

% Dollar Savings

43

Financial PerspectiveSummary

• Unit Cost • Animal Husbandry Unit Cost is $1.82/animal cage

day • Veterinary and Technical Unit Cost is

$11.25/animal census• Special Environmental Factors combined are

$14.36/unit• Housing Utilized and Holding Capacity

continued to increase across DVR

• Bulk purchasing of caging resulted in 22% percent savings to DRV in FY04

44

Financial PerspectivePlanned Actions

• Unit Costs will continue to be calculated in future FY’s for cost containment purposes

• Housing Utilized • Maintain or increase leasing agreements

• Housing Capacities continue to grow • Use of new caging schemes, i.e., ventilated rodent

racks• Assess need to renovate areas in light of

budgetary constraints

45

Financial PerspectivePlanned Actions

• Savings in Caging Purchases • Continue to purchase bulk caging and equipment

to obtain best pricing

46

Conclusions

47

Conclusions from PMP

• Full AAALAC Accreditation was maintained• Continued monitoring ACUC semi annual reviews• Socializations were increased over FY02 and FY03• Investigator’s who respond, do so within 24 hours • Maintained Leasing Agreement Process consistent

with FY03 – 100% completed by first day of new FY• Identified an upward trend in Veterinary Certifications

48


• Tracking of Technician Proficiencies • 56% of small animal facilities were evaluated• 80% of technicians are fully trained on all proficiencies in

sample facilities• Of the 5 facilities evaluated, each identified one fully trained

technician

• Housing Utilized and Capacity• Continued to be innovative in use of animal housing space

utilizing new technology and transforming space to meet demand for housing different species

49


• Highlight initiatives for FY05• To successfully complete FY05 AAALAC program review and

site visit. • Strive to continue to increase socializations • Review response time data and process to ensure appropriate

veterinary care• Complete technician proficiencies for each veterinary

technician; implement large animal proficiency tracking; strive for increased percentage of fully trained technicians

• (Use Initiative Roadmap here) – should be the same.

50

Appendix

Appendix

Pages 2 – 9 of Performance Management Plan


C1c: ACUC inspection ratings by facilityC1d: ACUC inspection ratings by discrete serviceC2a: For control special environmental factors, number of

consultations, presentations and trainingsC2b: For control special environmental factors, number of

publications and abstracts C3b: ORS Customer Scorecard Ratings for overall DVR services

C3c: Number of commendations, minor requests/complaints, and major defects by type

C3d: Number of commendations, minor requests/complaints, and major defects by facility

C3e: Number of commendations, minor requests/complaints, and major defects by discrete service

51

Appendix (cont.)

Appendix

Internal Business Process PerspectiveIB1c: Average number of days to receive quality assurance test results on feed

IB1c1: Control chart analysis of feed quality test assurance results turnaround time by month


52

Appendix (cont.)

Appendix

Financial PerspectiveF2c: Percentage increase in holding capacity and housing utilized for building 10A rodents

F2d: Percentage increase in holding capacity and housing utilized for building 14B rodents

F2e: Percentage increase in holding capacity and housing utilized for building 14C rodents

F2f: Percentage increase in housing utilized for building 14B non- human primates

F2g: Percentage increase in housing utilized for buildings 103 and 104 non-human primates

53

Performance Management Plan (page 2)


C1a: AAALAC accreditation ratings




Track and monitor Morgan and Foltz

C1b: ACUC inspection ratings by type




Pilot ACUC rating categorization, revise as appropriate, and implement. Take action as dictated by results.

Morgan and Foltz

C1c: ACUC inspection ratings by facility

Monitor Monitor Monitor Pilot ACUC rating categorization, revise as appropriate, and implement. Take action as dictated by results.

Morgan and Foltz

Cu

sto

mer


54



C2a: For control special environmental factors, number of consultations and presentations

Baseline TBD TBD Pilot, revise, and implement professional activities log. Track and monitor annually.

Hutchinson

C2b: For control special environmental factors, number of publications and abstracts


Hutchinson

C2c: For control special environmental factors, percentage of non-exempt animal census requiring socialization



Hutchinson

C2d: For control special environmental factors, percentage of attempted socializations that were successful



Hutchinson


Cu

sto

mer

55



C3a: ORS Customer Scorecard ratings for animal husbandry and clinical veterinary and technical services

Approved APD survey

Improvement in ratings on comparable discrete services surveyed in FY02

TBD Conduct survey in FY04 Q2

Morgan and Foltz

C3b: ORS Customer Scorecard Ratings for overall DVR services

Approved Scientific Director survey

Baseline TBD Conduct survey in FY04 Q2

Morgan and Foltz





Pilot customer log, revise as appropriate, and implement. Take action as dictated by results.

Morgan and Foltz


Monitor Monitor Monitor Pilot customer log, revise as appropriate, and implement. Take action as dictated by results.

Morgan and Foltz



Morgan and Foltz


Cu

sto

mer

56



IB1a: Investigator response time to notifications of health status



Tenace

IB1b: Percentage of holding agreements processed by beginning of fiscal year


100% 100% Track and monitor yearly. Take action as dictated by results.

Smith

IB1c: Average number of days to receive quality assurance test results on feed

Significantly improve FY02 turnaround time

TBD TBD Working Group will review results and gather benchmark information for presentation to Advisory Team for their consideration on how DVR should handle quality assurance of feed and bedding going forward.

Barnard


Monitor Monitor Monitor Track and monitor periodically

Barnard

IB2: Ensure consistent reliable services

IB2a: Percentage of new projects holding an orientation meeting.

Approved orientation meeting definition and guidelines

95% 100% Projects will begin implementing guidelines in FY04. Track and monitor quarterly. Take action as dictated by results.

Morgan and Foltz

Inte

rnal

Bu

sin

ess


57



LG1: Maintain and enhance competencies for the future DVR

LG1a: Percentage of staff with desired credentials


TBD TBD Identify improvements and implement

Morgan and Foltz

LG2a: Percentage of technicians fully trained on all procedures by facility

Pilot Results TBD TBD Implement data collection in all facilities. Track and monitor quarterly. Take action as dictated by results.

O'Brien and Morse

LG2b: Percentage of facilities with one fully trained technician

Pilot Results TBD TBD Implement data collection in all facilities. Track and monitor quarterly. Take action as dictated by results.

O'Brien and Morse

Lea

rnin

g a

nd

Gro

wth LG2: Improve

consistency of service performance across facilities

58



F1a: For animal husbandry services, cost per cage day (number of cage days /budget)


TBD TBD Track and monitor quarterly


F1b: For clinical veterinary and technical services, cost per animal census (number in animal census/budget)




F1c: For special environmental factors, cost per unit (number of units/budget)




F1: Minimize unit cost of each discrete service

Fin

anci

al

59



F2a: Overall percentage increase in holding capacity



Morgan and Foltz

F2b: Overall percentage of available housing utilized



Morgan and Foltz

F2c: Percentage increase in holding capacity and housing utilized for building 10A rodents



Morgan and Foltz




Morgan and Foltz




Morgan and Foltz

F2f: Percentage increase in housing utilized for building 14B non-human primates



Morgan and Foltz




Morgan and Foltz


Fin

anci

al

60



Fin

anci

al

F3: Maximize cost-effectiveness of purchases

F3a: Percentage dollar savings associated with selected purchase strategy changes and implemented process improvements

Calculated dollar savings in caging purchases

Calculated dollar savings associated with selected purchase strategy changes and implemented process improvements

Calculated dollar savings associated with selected purchase strategy changes and implemented process improvements

Identify improvements in purchase strategies. Implement change. Track and monitor quarterly.

Morgan

61




C1c: ACUC inspection ratings by facility

Monitor Monitor Monitor Pilot ACUC rating categorization, revise as appropriate, and implement. Take action as dictated by results.

Morgan and Foltz

62

C1c: ACUC Inspection Ratings by Facility

• Pilot tested log in FY04

63




C2a: For control special environmental factors, number of consultations, presentations, and trainings


Weed

C2b: For control special environmental factors, number of publications and abstracts/posters


Weed

64

C2a: Number of Consultations, Presentations and Trainings

11

47

10

2

7

18

0

10

20

30

40

50

FY03 FY04

Number of Consultations Number of Presentations Number of Trainings Provided

Note: Includes Control Special Environmental Factors data

65

C2b: Number of Publications and Abstracts/Posters

2

1

4

3

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

FY03 FY04

Number of Publications Number of Abstracts/Posters

Note: Includes Control Special Environmental Factors data

66







Pilot customer log, revise as appropriate, and implement. Take action as dictated by results.

Morgan and Foltz



Morgan and Foltz



Morgan and Foltz


67

C3b: Customer Scorecard Ratings for Overall DVR Services

• NIH level animal services study to be completed FY05

68

C3c: Customer Feedback Categorization by Type

• Developed customer log of commendations and complaints

• Pilot results for FY04• Commendations 98• Complaints 33

69

C3d: Customer Feedback Categorization by Facility

• Developed customer log of commendations and complaints by facility

Facility Type of Request NumberCommendations 2Minor Requests/Complaints 6Commendations 13Minor Requests/Complaints 3Commendations 27Minor Requests/Complaints 2Commendations 9Minor Requests/Complaints 10Commendations 9Minor Requests/Complaints 2Commendations 13Minor Requests/Complaints 6Commendations 8Minor Requests/Complaints 0Commendations 4Minor Requests/Complaints 0Commendations 7Minor Requests/Complaints 4Commendations 1Minor Requests/Complaints 0Commendations 6Minor Requests/Complaints 0

Building 128

Building 102

Building 103

Comments not building specific

Building 14E

Building 14D

Building 10B2

Building 10A

Building 14BN

Building 14C

Building 14F/G

70

C3e: Customer Feedback Categorization by Discrete Service

• Developed customer log of commendations and complaints

• Will pilot test and revise in FY05

71


72





Monitor Monitor Monitor Track and monitor periodically

Barnard

73

IB1c: Average Number of Days to Receive Quality Assurance Test Results on Feed

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1 8 15 22 29 36 43 50 57 64 71 78 85 92 99 106

FY04 Sample

# D

ay

s t

o R

ec

eiv

e Q

ua

lity

As

su

ran

ce

Re

su

lts

Note: Control chart 1B1c1 shown in Appendix beginning with FY03 data

Average = 17 days

Range = 6 – 27 days

74

IB1C1: Average Turnaround Time for Feed Quality Assurance Results

Individual Values: QA Turnaround Time

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1 7 13 19 25 31 37 43 49 55 61 67 73 79 85 91 97 103 109 115 121 127 133 139 145 151 157 163 169 175 181

Ind

ivid

ual

Val

ues

(X

)

UCL = 24.6

LCL = 7.6

FY03 FY04

Signal

Mean = 16.1

Moving Range: QA Turnaround Time

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

1 7 13 19 25 31 37 43 49 55 61 67 73 79 85 91 97 103 109 115 121 127 133 139 145 151 157 163 169 175 181

Mo

vin

g R

an

ge

(m

R)

UCL = 10.4

mR = 3.2

FY03 FY04

Signal

75



F2c: Percentage increase in holding capacity and housing utilized for building 10A rodents



Morgan and Foltz




Morgan and Foltz




Morgan and Foltz

F2f: Percentage increase in housing utilized for building 14B non-human primates



Morgan and Foltz




Morgan and Foltz


76

F2c: Percentage Increase in Holding Capacity and Housing Utilized for Building 10A Rodents

31%

51%

73% 73%

34%

59%

83% 83% 85%

61%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04

Holding Capacity Housing Utilization

Note: Percentage increase shown is against FY99 baseline

77

F2d: Percentage Increase in Holding Capacity and Housing Utilized for Building 14B Rodents

156%

325%

141%

225%

294%

353%

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

250%

300%

350%

400%

FY02 FY03 FY04

Holding Capacity Housing Utilization


78

F2e: Percentage Increase in Holding Capacity and Housing Utilized for Building 14C Rodents

-29% -27%

-56%

1%

8%12%

15%

-60%-70%

-60%

-50%

-40%

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

Holding Capacity Housing Utilized

Note: Percentage increase/decrease shown is against FY00 baseline

FY02 FY03 FY04FY01

79

F2f: Percentage Increase in Housing Utilized for Building 14B Non-Human Primates

43%

49%

55%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

60%

FY02 FY03 FY04

Housing Utilized


80

F2g: Percentage Increase in Housing Utilized for Buildings 103 and 104 Non-Human Primates

Note: Percentage increase/decrease shown is against FY00 baseline

-7%

10%

-5%-4%

-8%

-6%

-4%

-2%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

Housing Utilized

FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04

performance management presentation provide basic animal life support

Documents

percentage of facilities

percentage of staff

animal facilities

percentage of technicians

overall percentage increase

percentage dollar savings

high quality of animal

performance objectives