Download
1 / 59
590 likes | 607 Views
FY02 ASA Presentation “Provide Space Planning to Support IC Programs”. Presented by: Gerald W. Hines (team leader) Cyrena Simons Joan Swaney Camelia Smith Paul Hudes Mark Headings Robert England Robert Sheridan Office of Research Services National Institutes of Health
E N D
FY02 ASA Presentation “Provide Space Planning to Support IC Programs” Presented by: Gerald W. Hines (team leader) Cyrena Simons Joan Swaney Camelia Smith Paul Hudes Mark Headings Robert England Robert Sheridan Office of Research Services National Institutes of Health 18 November 2002
Table of Contents Main Presentation ASA Template ……………………………….……………………………….4 Customer Perspective……………………….……………………………….5 Customer Segmentation …………………….……………………………………6 Customer Satisfaction……………………….…………………………………….7 Unique Customer Measures………………….…………………………………..8 Internal Business Process Perspective…………………………………….9 Service Group Block Diagram…………………………………………………..10 Conclusions from Discrete Services Deployment Flowcharts……………….11 Process Measures………………………………………………………………..12 Learning and Growth Perspective………………………………………….13 Conclusions from Turnover, Sick Leave, Awards, EEO/ER/ADR Data……..14 Analysis of Readiness Conclusions…………………………………………….15 Unique Learning and Growth Measures………………………………………..16 Financial Perspective………………………………………………………..17 Unit Cost……………………………………………………………………………18 Asset Utilization……………………………………………………………………19 Unique Financial Measures..……………………………………………………..20 Conclusions and Recommendations……………………………………….21 Conclusions from FY02 ASA..……………………………………………………22 Recommendations…………………………………………………………………23
Table of Contents Appendices Page 2 of your ASA Template Customer segments graphs Customer satisfaction graphs Block diagram Process maps Process measures graphs Learning and Growth graphs Analysis of Readiness Information Unit cost graphs Asset utilization graphs Any unique measures graphs
Facilities Planning Continuum Facilities planning activities fall along a continuum: -Long Range Planning (10-20 year planning horizon) -Mid-range Planning (5-10 year planning horizon) -Short-range Planning (1-5 year planning horizon) The continuum encompasses two related ASAs: -Perform Master and Facilities Planning -Provide Space Planning to Support IC Programs
Customer Segmentation • FY 2002: 191 approved SJDs of 206 received (93%) • FY 2001: 100 approved SJDs of 170 received (59%) (the number of SJD increased with the assignment of Bldg. 10 phase 0)
Customer Survey • Response Rate: low at 18% • Response Profile: Good cross section of respondents with respect to • Location: • Bethesda, Local Leased area, Outside area • Size: very large to very small ICs • Function: mix of intramural, extramural, both
Short Range Planning Ratings Space Justification Document (SJD) Process, Manage Director’s Reserve, Develop Facilities Options 10.0 9.0 8.0 7.0 6.0 Mean Rating 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 Quality Timeliness Responsiveness 7.91 7.18 7.75 Mean Rating Category Data based on 12 respondents
Customer Survey: Short Range Planning Ratings • Lowest ratings among the three timeframes: the point in the continuum where competition among priorities is greatest and most disappointments will occur • As NIH implements plans to maintain Director’s Reserve and more funds are available to meet more priorities, these rating should improve
Unique Customer Measures: • Performance Objective to increase customer satisfaction • Performance Measure: Examine the frequency of meetings with ICs by compared to the number of SJDs by IC • Charted the number of meetings with ICs for 02 and 01 along with the number of approved SJDs • Identified the relationship with high number of SJDs to a low number of meetings, such as NHLBI, NIAMS, NICHD & NIDDK • Determine whether more meetings or regular meetings should be established to improve customer interaction
Conclusions from Discrete Services Deployment Flowcharts • For SJD Process - shows process is well defined & functions effectively • For Manage Director’s Reserve – recently approved as policy, flowchart defined process better • For Developing Facility Options – routinely done as an informal and/or formal part of the SJD process • SJDs have become a tracking mechanism to project changes in space and rent, and considerable coordination now occurs with OBSF, OAS & OFP
Process Measures & Findings • DS-1: Develop Facilities Options to Support IC Programs • Measure: Number of times SJD’s presented to SRB with and without formal options • Findings: The number of times informal and formal options were not presented to SRB were insignificant. Therefore, development of options is an integral part of the process
Process Measures & Findings: • DS-2: Manage Space Justification Process • Measure: SJDs, by IC, by program, by on/off campus & SJD process timeframes • Findings: For FY 01 460K net sq. ft. which is the total approved request is 6%, and for FY 02 1.2 mil nsf of total approved is 17% (excluding Building 10 phase 0, most allocations are off campus) of the total space on and off campus (7.0 mil nsf)
Process Measures & Findings: • DS-3: Manage NIH Director’s Reserve • Measure: Number of SJDs denied due to no Director’s Reserve vs SJDs met with Director’s Reserve • Findings: Since NIH has not had sufficient Director’s Reserve, therefore multiple (25) request for space could not be met in a timely manner (130K nsf of admin. And 159K of research requirements were unmet in FY 01 & 02)
SJD Process Timeframes For FY 01 and 02 the following are average timeframes: • 4 days between date received and notification memo • 42 days between notification memo to SRB meetings • 46 days between SRB Decision and Decision Memo • Total of 92 days or 4.6 months for process Findings: • The number days in FY 00 between received and notification memo is about the same • The number of days in FY 00 between SRB and Decision Memo increase by 9 days, because of additional details required to complete documentation • However, an e-mail communication to the IC and implementation teams was started within 5 days for SRB decision
Conclusions from Turnover, Sick Leave, Awards, EEO/ER/ADR Data Data Show: • Little turnover • Little absence • No EEO, other complaints • Third largest number of awards among the service groups in a service area with 13 staff Conclusions from Learning and Growth Data • Service area a good place to work • Awards are viewed as meaningful and prominently displayed
Analysis of Readiness & Conclusions Human Resources: Dedicated staff lacking skill requirements identified for functional areas backup staff for functional areas: one person, one task specialized skills, e.g., to develop presentation materials Recommendations for Corrective Action gap analysis of functional requirements and capacity to address them underway: to be completed by 1/1/03 winter retreat to address staff and organizational issues Special note: in many important instances, corporate knowledge and records reside with contractors, not staff.
Analysis of Readiness Conclusions Unmet Support Needs: technology: state of the art space and other data management systems; systems aren’t connected space to interact with clients; lay out, display, and store drawings, house large pieces of equipment equipment for reproduction of drawings, scanning software: up to date office suite • Current space management system recently sold for the 2nd time. NIH at risk re unknown continuing support. Lack of interconnectivity costs time and leads to conflicting information • Lack of space, equipment, and software increases reliance on contractors to develop, maintain, and reproduce drawings In the coming year, service groups will explore alternatives for data management systems, such as DCAB’s IPS. Issue of staff capacity and support to be considered in staff retreat
Unit Cost Measures to the SJD Process: • Unit cost for an SJD: • For FY 02 (for 206 SJDs) is about $1,500 • For FY 01 (for 170 SJDs) is about $1,700 ( a more realistic cost and this does not include supplemental cost for Bldg. 10 phase 0 for documentation) • The unit cost of DS-1 and DS-2 were rolled together • Small and large SJDs require a similar level of effort, and therefore unit cost not impacted by net sq. ft. allocated
Unit Cost Measures to Manage Director’s Reserve (DR) Space • Two cost components in a given year: • Manage use of available DR • Unit of measure is nsf of DR available within a year • This is a baseline cost which will remain fairly constant • Manage the acquisition of required DR • Unit of measure is nsf of DR to be acquired • Depends on how much DR must be acquired
Cost to Manage Director’s Reserve (DR) Space • FY 2002, • 68,000 nsf of space was in the DR during FY 2002. It took about 1/10th of the OFP staff time dedicated to this discrete service to manage that DR. Or about $0.5/nsf of DR. • No effort was spent acquiring new DR, because NIH had not formally authorized the acquisition of DR List asset utilization measures for each discrete service
Cost to Manage Director’s Reserve (DR) Space • FY 2003 Projections • managing DR available within a year will remain about the same as level for 2003 is expected to be similar. • Acquiring New DR • It is estimated that it will cost about $150,000 of contract services ($25K for POR, $50K for real-estate services, and $75K for concept design) to lease this space or about $30/nsf of space to acquire 50,000 nsf of “rolling DR”. • In additional about 1/10th of the OFP staff time dedicated to this service group to will be needed for this acquisition, or about $.5/nsf.
Asset Utilization Measures • Director’s Reserve Space was identified to measure asset utilization, based on frequency of use • 48K nsf of admin. and 28K nsf of research Director’s Reserve for FY 02 & 01 • Average utilization of admin. Director’s Reserve is 80% • Average utilization of research Director’s Reserve is 99% • Translates to 10,300 nsf of vacant space out of 7.0 mil nsf in inventory on and off campus
Conclusions from FY02 ASA • The e-mail to the ICs and the ORS Implementation team after approval of an SJD has provided an improvement for communications to all parties • Without sufficient DR, some NIH requirements cannot be met and other requirements require complex maneuvers to satisfy • Once the “pipeline” of DR is established in 2004, effort to develop options for SJDs will decrease and effort will focus on maintaining DR supply • Until the “pipeline” of DR is established, the effort to to meet current SJDs will remain high, and the effort to acquire DR will be additive. • Coordination between ORS for tracking rent changes increased, but continued effort to make more efficient is needed
Recommendations • Revalidate the appropriate level of rolling Director’s Reserve • Actively pursue the rolling Director’s Reserve to met program growth • Develop plan to accommodate staff replacements due to upcoming retirements • Add Microsoft Project and Viso software systems to staff PC’s • Complete staff training for IPS and other management programs
Appendices • Include the following: • Page 2 of your 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 • Any unique measures graphs
Customer Survey Distribution Number of Surveys Distributed 85 Number of Surveys Returned 12 Response Rate 18%
Customer Satisfaction Survey Survey combined two ASAs: • Perform Master and Facilities Planning • Provide Space Planning to Support IC Programs Arrayed their 12 discrete services on a continuum: Long Range Planning (10-20 year planning horizon) Mid-range Planning (5-10 year planning horizon) Short-range Planning (1-5 year planning horizon) Customers were asked to rate satisfaction on a scale of 1-10, (unsatisfactory to outstanding) with respect to • Quality • Timeliness • Responsiveness
Survey Respondents (cont.)FY02 Respondents by Customer Mission
FY02 Short Range Planning Ratings Note: The rating scale ranges from 1 - 10 where “1” represents Unsatisfactory and “10” represents Outstanding.
Do the facilities planning services in ORS support your Institute’s mission planning efforts?
Do you understand how to get your Institute’s needs into the strategic facilities planning process?
Does the current process work effectively for your Institute to acquire the space you need?
What needs to be improved? • DES has provided NIDDK with excellent service. • Speed up the process for obtaining lease space. Give the institutes more independence in managing and renovating their lease space. Educate the institutes in the process of getting B&F funding for their projects. Publish the yearly B&F budget so we can see what is being funded; the strategic and long range plans so we can see what is included and how we need to adjust our plans based on what is proposed by NIH. • CSR has acquired space on two different occasions. In the first instance, the SJD process worked beautifully and in a very timely fashion. The second experience was very unsatisfactory and CSR ended up paying rent on 15,000 square feet that was unusable for six months. For this reason I marked the SJD process very low. I also did not answer two of the last three questions because "sometimes" would have been the right answer but it wasn't offered. • The corporate implications of individual IC requests for space, including leased space, should be much more rigorously examined and weighed in the decision-making process. A strategic plan for off campus space needs to be developed soon so that the NIH can rationally move toward having a second campus rather than proliferating and widely dispersed sites that the NIH corporate infrastructure must support, at great cost.
What needs to be improved? (cont.) • Yes, I think there needs to be a clearer definition of role responsibilities in ORS once a space decision has been made. I recently had outstanding service from the facilities planning branch, but then when the baton was passed on to DES and the Real Estate Leasing Branch, the service was terrible. I was able to work out the problems with DES staff, and have experienced outstanding service from the DES project officer who was reassigned to my project after my complaints, but I have had terrible, and continue to receive terrible service from the real estate leasing branch. There needs to be some very clear definition of responsibilities once the facilities planning branch passes the baton on to actually get the work done. I experienced an incredible turf battle between the Real Estate Leasing Branch and DES over who had responsibility for what, and this was totally unnecessary. I would strongly recommend that the responsibilities be handed off to DES program management.
