1 Performance Management Presentation (7) Manage and Administer Worksite Enrichment Program Lead: Timothy Tosten Members: Charly Abrew Joy Postell John

1

Performance Management Presentation

(7) Manage and Administer Worksite Enrichment Program

Lead: Timothy Tosten

Members:

Charly Abrew Joy Postell John Crawford Mary Ellen SavareseChristopher Gaines David SheaCarole Harman Kiana Timmons Pamela Jenkins

Office of Research ServicesNational Institutes of Health

January 14, 2005

2

Table of Contents

PM Template ……………………………….………………………3

Customer Perspective……………………….……………………..7

Internal Business Process Perspective………………………………………………………34

Learning and Growth Perspective………………………………………………………45

Financial Perspective………………………………………………50

Conclusions and Recommendations………………………………………………58

3

Team Members

Joy Postell, Chris Gaines, Carole Harman, Pam Jenkins, Charley Abrew, Mary Ellen Savarese, David Shea, Kiana Timmons, John Crawford

Date: January 14th, 2005

Tim Tosten

Strategy Description

Team Leader

We will implement our strategy of operational excellence by responding to customer questions and complaints in a timely and professional manner, and by continuously improving our vendor and contractor offerings at the lowest possible cost.

Service Strategy

We improve the quality of work life for NIH employees, contractors, and patients by providing convenient access to quality services which enhance and simplify our customers' lives. We maintain the highest possible standards through our vendors and contractors because we honestly care about our customers.

Value Proposition

Primary: NIH Employees; Additional: NIH Patients, Contractors

Service Group Customers

Manage and Administer Worksite Enrichment Programs

Service Group

DS4: Manage Interpreting services, programs, and contracts

Performance Management Plan (PMP)

DS3: Manage retail and fitness services, programs, contracts, and use agreements

DS2: Manage food services programs, contracts, and use agreements

DS1: Manage child care services, programs, contracts and use agreements

Discrete Services

Division Approval/Date: Associate Director Approval/Date:

Operational Excellence

Customer Intimacy

Product Leadership

Growth

Sustain

Harvest


Customer Intimacy

Product Leadership

Growth

Sustain

Harvest


Customer Intimacy

Product Leadership

Growth

Sustain

Harvest

4

PMP Template- Page 2Objective Measure

FY 03 Target

FY04 Target FY05 Target Initiative Owner

Cu

sto

mer

C1. Improved Quality of Worklife (Because the lines between work / home life are blurred, we must provide the best quality services to the NIH community in order to enhance employees lives and enable them to be productive at work.) C2. Manage Vendors to a High Qulaity Standard (Hold vendors accountable for providing services within the bounds of "perfromance-based" contracting. Ensure vendors provide good customer service. Enable customers to feel that the services provided are satisfactory (services are inviting). C3. Assist NIH with amenities planning (Assure that we are actively involved in the planning and execution of new and modified construction projects for the NIH communities. Measure twice and cut once to avoid retro-fitting of services. We represent the customer in the building process.

C1 a. Results of Customer satisfaction survey C1 b. Usage/ Demand for services C1 c. customer counts for each service C2 a. Percent of vendors meeting standards in contracts C2 b. number of meetings with vendors C3 a. Percent of new space opened without amenities influence C3 b. number of inclusions of WPB staff in planning meetings that impact amenities

70% C1. Include our message as part of HR package C2. Put "solid" use agreements in place C3. Develop amenities planning checklist C3. Maintain minutes of pre-planning meetings

Inte

rnal B

usin

ess

I1. Hold Vendors Accountable (Require Regular inspections and reports; setting goals to meet improvements; Decrease the gap between actual performance and goals set in contract) I2 Change/update Agreements as needs require (Based on feedback from customers, change or update agreements or contracts to fit the needs of our customers; Also use input from vendors for improvements). I3. Educate Employees to Services and Service Standards (Collaborate with other organizations (ie HR) to specify ammenities and services accessible to NIH employees, contractors, visitors and patients.)

I1 a. Results of Audits (difference between actual performance and standards in contract/ use agreement) I1 b. Percent of follow-through (based on inspections) I2 a. Percent of "filtered" customer suggestions and vendor inputs included in agreements and contracts. I2 b. Percent of contracts reviewed for change/update in any given year. I3 a. Percent of customers that can put our name with our program. I3 b. Advertising & promotion volume

I2. Educate Customers I3. Survey customers

Learn

ing

an

d G

row

th

L1. Maintain our integrity (Don't over-extend ourselves-Deliver on our promises-We expect our contractors to act responsibly and we need to keep our side of this bargain.) L2. Encourage a "caring environment" (Let our customers know tht we represent themand we will do anything we can to ensure that their needs are met. Maintain our sense of humor and share our experiences. Work closely with vendors/contractors to ensure they provide an excellent environment.) L3. Help our vendors understanding a "changing NIH" (Share information regarding the constant changing NIH environment with our vendor/contractor community. Provide answers where possible and assist in evaluating the resulting impact.)

L1 a. Work plan vs. actual (for each service area) L1 b. Customer complaints/ customer satisfaction survey results (for each service area) L2 a. Results of internal climate survey L2 b. Results of Vendor/ Contractor Survey L3 a. Frequency of Vendor/ Contractor Acknowlegements L3 b. Number of messages to vendors

L1. Develop work plans for each service area (e.g. Child Care) L2. Develop survey/ respond to top concerns L3. Messaging/ info to vendors (newsletter for vendors)

Fin

an

cia

l

F1. Fulfillment of Obligation (Enlist support of property managers to ensure goals of customer service are met. Not receiving this support limits the ability of our team to do their job.) F2. Provide Business Case (Develop plan that can be rationalized with ORS with regard to new constructionor upgrades to ensure our involvement and to meet our obligation to the vendor/contractor community.) F3. Influence ORS Investments (Inject our planning influence to insure new construction or upgrades can accomodate amenities within the bounds of project budgets. -No retro-fit)

F1 a. Speed of service tickets F1 b. Payment rate for vendors (late versus on time) F2 a. Unit cost (minimized) F2 b. Budget request approval (% funded) F3 a. Percent of plans with retro for amenities (use current for baseline) F3 b. Percent of plans matching actual on construction of amenities F3 c. Number of construction document submission changes (impacting amenities).

F2. Validate Unit Cost

5

Relationship Among Performance Objectives

Strategy MapWorksite Enrichment: We will exhibit operational excellence by responding to customer questions and complaints in a timely and professional manner through continuous improvement of our vendor and contractor offerings at the lowest possible cost

Customer

InternalProcesses

Financial

Learning & Growth

C1Improved Quality

of worklife

I1Hold vendors accountable

I2Change/ Update

Agreements

L3Help our vendors

understand a “changing NIH”

F1Fulfillment of

Obligation

F3Influence ORS

investments

I3Educate Employees

C2Manage vendors to

high quality standards

L1Maintain our integrity

C3Assist NIH with

Amenities planning

F2Provide

Business Case

L2Encourage a

“caring environment”

6

High Impact Objectives

High Impact ObjectivesWorksite Enrichment: We will exhibit operational excellence by responding to customer questions and complaints in a timely and professional manner through continuous improvement of our vendor and contractor offerings at the lowest possible cost

Customer

InternalProcesses

Financial

Learning & Growth

C1Improved Quality

of worklife

I1Hold vendors accountable

I2Change/ Update

Agreements

L3Help our vendors

understand a “changing NIH”

F1Fulfillment of

Obligation

F3Influence ORS

investments

I3Educate Employees

C2Manage vendors to

high quality standards

L1Maintain our integrity

C3Assist NIH with

Amenities planning

F2Provide

Business Case

L2Encourage a

“caring environment”

7

Customer Perspective

8

Customer Perspective

Objective MeasureFY 03 Target

FY04 TargetFY05

TargetInitiative Owner

Custo

mer

C1. Improved Quality of Worklife (Because the lines between work / home life are blurred, we must provide the best quality services to the NIH community in order to enhance emplo

C1 a. Results of Customer satisfaction survey C1 b. Usage/ Demand for services C1 c. customer counts for each service

70% C1. Include our message as part of HR package

9

Survey BackgroundPurpose

• Use customer feedback to improve the work/life programs offered to the NIH community:

• Child Care• Fitness Centers / Wellness Programs• Food Services (dining centers, coffee and snack bars, concession

stands, vending machines)• Interpreting Services• Retail Programs (employee stores, banking services)

• Assess importance of services offered, and their contribution to quality of work life.

• Assess awareness of availability of NIH liaison (DoES staff) for work/life programs, and assess satisfaction with interactions with DoES staff.

• Solicit comments on ideas for additional services and/or potential improvements to NIH employees’ quality of work life.

10

Survey BackgroundMethodology

• Original web-link for survey was made available for testing on Thursday, July 15, 2004

• Testing completed and survey e-mailed to NIH Staff-DC Area distribution list on Friday, August 27, 2004

• Survey initially became “unresponsive” when respondents entered comments that were over 255 characters or included a “special character” – Issue was resolved late Monday, August 30, 2004. During this time, over 1500 surveys were received despite the comment restriction.

• Reminder sent on Thursday, September 9, 2004• Respondents immediately began to experience a “database error “. On the

same day, the server on which the survey was hosted was down for a few hours due to a network problem (presumably unrelated to the database error) – Issue was resolved later the same day. During this time, no surveys were received.

• Survey closed on Monday, September 20, 2004• Survey analysis completed on Monday, October 18, 2004

11

Survey BackgroundDistribution

Number of surveys distributed 26,731*

Number of respondents 4,889

Response Rate 18 %

*Census population estimates obtained from DFP effective May 15, 2004. Census number includes NIH employees, contractors, Postdocs, Visiting fellows, and Volunteers on-campus and in the local Bethesda area, but does not include students.

12

FY04 Importance Ratings

8.45

9.04

6.74

7.16

7.43

7.91

4.59

4.13

4.45

4.08

4.85

5.16

9.01

8.35

4.55

5.61

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

** Interpreting Services

** Fitness Centers

** Child Care Services

** Gift Stores

** NIH Credit Union

** Vending Machines

** Concession stands

** NIH Dining Centers onCampus

Have Not Used in Past 6 Months

Have Used in Past 6 Months

Mean Response

Very Unimportant

Very Important

N = 3,212N = 653

Note: ** Groups significantly different (p < .01)

N = 1,448N = 2,394

N = 1,296N = 2,790

N = 1,393N = 2,561

N = 1,444N = 2,583

N = 2,576N = 239

N = 3,414N = 285

N = 2,663N = 227

13

FY04 Quality of Work Life Ratings

163 129

478

1,664 1,680

50

198

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

1 2 3 4 5 DK NA

Fre

qu

en

cy o

f R

esp

on

se

N = 4,362

Mean = 4.11

Median = 4

The work site enrichment programs (e.g., dining centers, concession stands, credit union, gift stores, child care, fitness centers) add to my quality of my work life here at NIH.

Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree

Note: 527 respondents skipped this question

14


N = 3,717

N = 675

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000

NO

YES

N = 4,392

Number of Respondents

85%

Did you know you have an NIH liaison for all of these programs?

15%


15

N = 3,887

N = 505

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000

NO

YES

N = 4,392


89%

Do you know how to contact an NIH liaison for these programs if you need to?


11%


16

146

4,011

225

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500

DK

NO

YES

N = 4,382


3%

Have you contacted someone from the Division of Employee Services about any of the programs discussed in this survey during the past 6 months?


5%

92%


17

FY04 Satisfaction RatingsInteraction with Division of Employee Services Staff

7.09

7.68

7.46

7.43

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Handling of Problems

Competence

Responsiveness

Availability N = 220

N = 217

N = 222

N = 219

Mean Response

Note: Only answered by those who have contacted someone from the Division of Employee Services during the past six months.

18

Customer Survey Summary

• Importance of Services• Respondents were asked to rate the importance of services on a 10-point

scale ranging from (1) Very Unimportant to (10) Very Important.

• Respondents who have used service within past 6 months versus those who have not

• There are significant differences between respondents who have used the services recently and those who have not. In all cases, respondents who have used the services recently find the services to be significantly more important than those who have not.

• For those who have used the service, importance ratings range from a high of 9.04 (Fitness Center) and 9.01 (Child Care Services) to a low of 6.74 (Gift Store) and 7.16 (Vending Machines). All are above the midpoint of the scale.

• For those who have not used the service, importance ratings range from a high of 5.61 (Fitness Center) and 5.16 (Dining Services) to a low of 4.08 (Vending Machines) and 4.13 (Gift Stores).

• The fitness center seems to be rated highest in importance for both groups while vending machines and gift stores least important – regardless of use.

19

Customer Survey Summary (cont.)

• Importance of Services (cont.)• On- versus off-campus respondents

• On and off campus respondent ratings differed significantly from each other.

• In general, on campus respondents found services to be more important than off campus respondents with two exceptions.

• Off campus respondents indicated that fitness centers were significantly more important to them than on campus respondents.

• Vending machine importance did not differ significantly between respondents.

• NIH Employees versus other respondents• NIH employee versus other respondents did not differ significantly with two

exceptions. • NIH employees found concession stands to be more important to them than

other respondents. • Other respondents found child care services to be more important to them

than NIH employees.

20

Customer Survey Summary (cont.)

• Quality of Work Life Ratings• Respondents were asked to rate the extent to which the services offered by

DoES contribute to the quality of the work life at NIH. The scale ranged from (1) Strongly Disagree to (5) Strongly Agree. The mean rating of 4.11 indicates that respondents strongly agree that the services contribute to the quality of their work life.

• Only 15% of respondents know that they have a NIH liaison for the services.

• Only 11% of respondents know how to contact the NIH liaison.• Only 5% of respondents contacted someone from DoES during the past 6

months. Respondents (N = 225) who had contacted someone were asked to rate their satisfaction with their interaction on four dimensions. A 10-point scale ranging from (1) Unsatisfactory to (10) Outstanding was used. The following mean ratings were obtained:

• Availability (7.43)• Responsiveness (7.46)• Competence (7.68)• Handling of Problems (7.09)

• Their were no differences between on and off campus respondents or between NIH employees and others.

21

• Communicate the survey results to important stakeholder groups

• ORS Senior Management

• DoES staff

• Survey respondent pool

• DoES ACTIONS

• Present results to ORS Director and staff

• Have 15 minute portion of DoES staff meeting dedicated to results

• Create a webpage for broadcasting our results

Recommendations & Actions

22

Recommendations & Actions (cont.)

• Communicate DoES services and capabilities to customers

• Provide survey results to survey respondent pool

• Consider ways to provide information on services to the NIH community (e.g., website, newsletters, emails, orientation for new employees, etc.)

• DoES ACTIONS

• Attend NIH Orientation Sessions every two weeks

• Publish a series highlighting our results (News2Use, Catalyst)

• Devise other “new” means of getting the word out

• Create a webpage for broadcasting our results

23

• Review comments in presentation for specific issues that can be tackled

• DoES ACTIONS

• Each service area will read through comments and determine which appear more frequently

• By April 2005, each area will develop an action plan based on comments

• Review specific questions with lowest mean ratings to determine priorities for improvement

• DoES ACTIONS

• By April 2005, each service area will take lowest mean rated services and develop action plan


24


• Determine possible reasons for differences between NIH on campus and off campus service use and perceptions. If reasons for differences cannot be changed, consider ways to manage perceptions through education, awareness, etc.

• DoES Senior Management brainstorming session

• Focus group including employee representatives

• DoES ACTIONS

• Each service area will study this appearance

• By April 2005, each area will develop an action plan

• Conduct follow-up survey (within next 2 years) to check on improvements

• DoES ACTIONS

• DOES will work with OQM in early 2006 to develop a follow-up survey

25

Customer Feedback Boxes

Implementation Date – February 2005

Purpose and expected outcome: • To actively solicit customer feedback at service locations

Measurements of success:• C1 a. Results of Customer satisfaction survey• C1 b. Usage/Demand for services (customer counts) for each

service• I2 a. Percent of customer suggestions/complaints and vendor

inputs with follow through

C1. Improve Quality of Worklife Initiative

26

C1b: Customer Counts Per Program

Total customers served in F04 = 2,478,95812% increase from FY03 (2,185,797)

Note: Interpreting Services shows total number of requests, not total people served.

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

Tota

l Cou

nts

DOES Programs

FY 03 1,696,590 436,000 11,985 1,398

FY 04 2,022,684 440,973 13,423 1,878

Food Services Retail/Fitness Interpreting Child Care

27

C1b: Usage/Demand for Child Care Services

Total = 290 Available Spaces Total = 943 Children on the Wait List

= 10 Children

Ages Served Spaces Available for Children Under the age of 5 within the

NIH Child Care Programs

Children Currently on the NIH Waiting List as of

October 28, 2004

Birth to 12 Months (18)

(357)

12 - 18 Months (18)

(118)

18 - 24 Months (24)

(107)

24 - 36 Months (60)

(173)

Preschool

(170)

(188)

28

C1b: Usage/ Demand for Food ServicesTotal Number of Customers Served

1,600,000 1,664,052 1,696,590

2,022,884

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

To

tal P

op

ula

tio

n S

erve

d

FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004

Fiscal Year

Food Services Programs

29

Percentage of Actual Customer Participation by Dining Center

30.20%41.19%

30.51%

44.74%42.31%

34.11%

27.90%

38.81%55.90%

49.63%

0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00%

110

12b3135

38a404550

Ave

Build

ing

Percentage

C1b: Usage/ Demand for Food ServicesPercentage of Actual Customer Participation

by Dining Center

Notes:

Based on ORF/DFP census data for the actual buildings and those surrounding them

Average customer participation for FY04 - 34.11%

30

C1b: Usage/ Demand for Food ServicesPercentage of Total Customers by Dining Center

Percentage of Total Customers by Dining Center

2%

56%

8%

6%

4%

11%

3% 6% 4%1

10

12b

31

35

38a

40

45

50

31

C1b: Usage/Demand for Interpreting Services

6,444

8,473

11,188

12,49813,423

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000Ho

urs

07/1999 to 05/2000 06/2000 to 05/2001 06/2001 to 05/2002 06/2002 to 05/2003 06/2003 to 06/2004

Data Collection Period

Note: Interpreting Services usage has increased by 52% over the past 5 years.

32

C1b: Usage/Demand for Interpreting Services

Cumulative Interpreting Service Hours UsageJuly 1999 to May 2004Total Hours: 51,115.5

40,892

7,156.5 3,067

Patients

Staff

Meetings

33

C1b: Usage/Demand for Fitness Membership Campus Population vs. Fitness Center Members FY04

Population95%

Members5%

Rockledge Population vs. Fitness Center Members FY04

Population85%

Members15%

34

Internal Business Process Perspective

35

Internal Business Process PerspectiveIn

tern

al B

usi

nes

s

I1. Hold Vendors Accountable (Require Regular inspections and reports; setting goals to meet improvements; Decrease the gap between actual performance and goals set in contract)

I1 a. Results of Audits (difference betw een actual performance and standards in contract/ use agreement) I1 b. Percent of follow -through (based on inspections)

0



36

Vendor Auditing SystemImplemented - October 2004

Purpose and expected outcome • The purpose is to create a system to evaluate vendors during

inspections. • While the criteria for evaluating vendors will vary for the

different programs, the scoring scale will be the same thus allowing the evaluation across programs.

• The theory is diligent and systematic vendor auditing will improve compliance to contracts and ultimately increased customer satisfaction.

Measurements of success• I1 a. Results of Audits (difference between actual

performance and standards in contract/use agreement)• I1 b. Percent of follow-through by vendors (based on

inspections)

I1. Hold Vendors Accountable Initiative

37

Customer Comment Log

Implemented – August 2004

Purpose and expected outcome • Track customer comments, suggestions, and complaints to

ensure that they are being addressed in a timely manner. • Keeping a log in Excel will allow statistics to be gathered and

reported on response time to issues by DoES staff.

Measurements of success• C1a: Results of Customer Satisfaction survey.

I1. Hold Vendors Accountable Initiative

38

Internal Business Process Perspective (cont.)



Intern

al Bu

sines

s

I2 Change/update Agreements as needs require (Based on feedback from customers, change or update agreements or contracts to fit the needs of our customers; Also use input from vendors for improvements).

I2 a. Percent of "filtered" customer suggestions and vendor inputs included in agreements and contracts. I2 b. Percent of contracts reviewed for change/update in any given year.

I2. Educate Customers

39

I2a. Percent of customer suggestions/complaints and vendor inputs with follow through

Time to resolve issue by percentage: 8/25/04 to 11/05/04 (135 entries)

59.3%

19.3%

1.5% 0.7%3.7%

15.6%

1 Day or less 2-7 days 8-14 days 15-21 days >22 days Open/continuousitems

Note: 78.6% of issue were resolved in less than a week.

40

IB3b. Advertising and Promotion Volume

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000N

um

ber

of

Pie

ces

Flyers Give-a-ways Other

Advertising & Promotional Material

2002

2003

2004 (Proj)

2004 (Actual)

2005 (Proj)

41

IB3a. Percent of customers that can put our name with our program

Customers that can put our name with our program

0

500000

1000000

1500000

2000000

2500000

Total Customers Total Responding

To

tal

Cu

sto

me

r P

ou

lati

on

1%

42

I3. Educate Employees to Services and Service Standards Initiative

Include DoES message in HR welcome package

Implemented - October 2004

Purpose and expected outcome • Including advertisement in HR package distributed during

orientation would be an effective way of informing new employees of DoES services.

Measurements of success• I3 a. Percent of customers that can put our name with our

program

43

Internal Business Process PerspectiveWhat the data tells us

• We have made a good start in increasing our vendor monitoring

• We are working more closely with our vendors to hold them more accountable

• We are marketing our services, but still there are a number of people who do not know who we are and what we do

44

Internal Business Process PerspectiveActions

• We need to incorporate standard performance-based information into all of our contracts and use agreements

• We need to do more in marketing our services to the NIH

45

Learning and Growth Perspective

46

Learning and Growth Perspective

L2a: Results of internal climate survey

90% Positive results (8 or

higher)Respond to top concerns

L2b: Results of Vendor Survey Baseline 90% positive results

L2: Encourage a "caring environment"

Objective MeasureFY 03

TargetFY04 Target

FY05 Target

Initiative Owner

47

L2a. Results of Previous Internal Climate Survey

7.38

7

6.89

6.44

6.33

7

7.33

7.11

7.33

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Physical environment (e.g., safety)

Respectful treatment by others

Fair and equitable treatment by others

Information on schedule or location of others

Information received to keep abreast of variousprograms

Information received concerning changes within NIH

Feedback on work activities

Communication with supervisors/managers

Communication with peers

N = 9

Unsatisfactory

Outstanding

48

L2b. Results of Previous Vendor Survey

7.57

6

6.95

7.55

7.16

7.94

8.13

8.06

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Availability of Information Related to Job Duties

Restrooms/Locker Room Cleanliness

Adequacy of Storage Space

Maintenance of Equipment in Facility

Maintenance of Facility

Badges/ID Handling

Lighting of Stairways

Personal Security

N = 112

Unsatisfactory

Outstanding

49

Learning and Growth PerspectiveWhat we have done since surveys

• We instituted a newsletter to our vendors• We are meeting on a more regular basis with

our vendors and their staff• We brought in consultants to work on team

building with DoES staff, both as a Division, but also in teams

• We have restructured staff meetings to become more efficient and effective

• We did not have another climate or vendor survey in FY04, we plan to have one in FY05

50

Financial Perspective

51

Financial Perspective (cont.)

Objective MeasureFY 03

TargetFY04 Target

FY05 Target

Initiative Owner

F2a: Unit CostValidate and minimize

unit cost

F2b: Budget Request approval (% funded)

F2: Provide Business Case Develop a plan that can be rationalized within ORS woth regard to new construction or upgrades to ensure our involvement and to meet our obligation to the vendor/contractor

52

Vendor Service LogImplementing – February 2005

Purpose and expected outcome

• The purpose of the log is to ensure service issues are being addressed and to track how long they take to resolve.

• The vendor is in the best position to detect facility deficiencies and to confirm when they are corrected.

Measurements of success• F1a. Speed of service tickets

F1. Fulfillment of Obligation

53

F1a. Unit Measures

DS1- Number children/families servedDS2- Number of customersDS3- Number of customersDS4- Based on hours provided per year

54

F1a. Unit Measures

Unit Measures FY 2004Budget

FY 2004 Actual

FY 2005 Request

FY 2006 Request

FY 2007 Forecast

Manage child care services, programs, contracts and use agreements. ( # of

children/families served 1,400 1,878 2,103 2,103 2,203

Manage food services programs, contracts and use agreements.

# of customers 1,727,000 2,022,6842,083,36

4 2,145,864 2,210,239

Manage retail and fitness services, programs, contracts and use agreements.

# of customers 436,000 440,973 450,000 465,000 480,000

Manage interpreting services, programs, and contracts # of interpreting

service hours 12,584 13,423 14,094 14,798 15,537

55

F3. Influence ORS Investments

Amenities Guidelines Implemented – October 2004

Purpose and expected outcome • Provide guidelines for designers so that amenities are properly

planned for in construction projects. • Prevent costly change orders and tenant dissatisfaction.

Measurements of success• F3 a. Number of change orders due to amenities and total cost.• • F3 b. Construction dollars spent on submission changes

(impacting amenities) as a percent of total construction dollars.

56

Financial PerspectiveWhat the data and initiatives tell us

• The new unit measures are working much better and truly reflect what we do

• We did a good job of influencing what the final amenities plan was going to look like, which allows us to get amenities planning into all space planning

57

Financial PerspectiveActions

• Ensure Amenities Plan is used like it was intended to be

• Continue to forecast our budget by learning as best we can what future needs will be

58

Conclusions

59

Conclusions from FY04 PM Process

• In 2004, we mainly concentrated on our “High Impact” Objectives

• Demand for our services is increasing yearly• We are increasing our oversight and partnerships

with our vendors• We still need to do a better job of formally tracking

and monitoring vendor performance• We need to use the new feedback boxes and vendor

maintenance logs to improve our performance• We need to devise new ways to get out customers to

know that we are here for them

Documents

1 Performance Management Presentation (7) Manage and Administer Worksite Enrichment Program Lead: Timothy Tosten Members: Charly Abrew Joy Postell John