Upload
lyminh
View
213
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Measuring In Project Processes with Team-Driven
Feedback: Holly Hill Hospital
Ryan SuydamHouston BrownChristian PikelMark Spies
Client Feedback ToolBrasfield & Gorrie
UHSStengel Hill Architecture
Agenda
• Team Introductions and Perspectives• The Project: Holly Hill Hospital• Overview and Initial Goals• Early Results and Refinement• Quantifying Work Hand-Off• Tracking Conditions of Satisfaction• Wrap up, Lessons Learned, Q&A
Team Introduction & Perspectives
• Ryan Suydam, Client Feedback Tool, “Feedback Guru”
• Houston Brown, Brasfield & Gorrie, “GC / Estimator”
• Christian Pikel, UHS, “Owner”
• Mark Spies, Stengel Hill Architecture, “Architect”
The Project: Holly Hill Hospital• 80 Bed Child Behavioral Expansion Hospital
greenfield project• 14 month duration: Validation through First
Patient Day• High expectations to set new benchmark and
push innovation on smaller/quicker projects• Expect ground breaking 1st Week November• Designated as test case
ILPD project for demonstrating potential of feedback tool
Overview and Initial Goals
“Client” Feedback
A process in which the results of a service
as evaluated by the recipient of the service
affect the service delivery
while the service is being performed
PLAN DO CHECK ACT
Overview and Initial Goals
• You Can’t Manage What You Don’t Measure (Drucker)
• What’s Measured Tends to Improve (Hawthorne)
• Provides Practical Benefits Quality, Risk, Bottom Line
• Responds to Basic Human NeedsRespect, Appreciation, Loyalty
Project Start
Low
Hig
h
Project Closeout
FBFB FBFBFBFB FB
MeetingKey
Deliverable
Start Finish
MeetingEnd of Phase
End of Phase
FB = Send Survey & Collect Feedback
Kickoff Meeting
Final Deliverable
Unresolved Issues Erode Relational Equity
Identify Issues+ Discover Successes
= Improved Relational Equity
Overview and Initial Goals
Your Team
Leader
Manager
Staff
Partners
Leader
Manager
Staff
Client
Leader
Manager
Staff
Overview and Initial Goals
Overview and Initial Goals
Follow-up:Shows respect
Demonstrates expertiseBuilds lasting value
When surveyed again:
“Acceptance” increases 83%
Automatic Centering•Starts at “Met Expectations”•Scale promotes “process” questions
Fast & Easy•Intuitive to use•2 seconds to score
Capture Detail•60 level answer scale•Respondents can “nudge” the scores
Overview and Initial Goals
Overview and Initial GoalsBackground:
• Explore opportunities within ILPD
Conditions: • Cultural adoption of ILPD challenged
Hypothesis: • Tracking team member perceptions will surface
successes and accelerate resolution of issues. • Open sharing of feedback will increase team
effectiveness and communication.
Experimental Methods: • Survey Big Room attendees• Survey work hand-off interactions• Survey overall team success
Early Results and Refinement
390 surveys sent in 33 batches
184 replies for a 47% response
rate
Includes 32 people from 12 trade partners
over a six-month period
Early Results and RefinementPhase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3
Phase 1:“Generic”
surveys – few useful results
Phase 2:Targeted surveys – but no follow-
up
Phase 3:Targeted surveys with purposeful
follow-up discussions
Early Results and Refinement
Plan (how to measure perceptions)• Asked “standard” questions• After Big Rooms, Handoffs, and Monthly• B&G to distribute results
Do (how we measured)• Completed two Big Room cycles
Check (what did measuring accomplish)• Not much happened – lots of data,
minimal usefulness.
Act (what do we change)• Changed survey design (CoS) – Improved usefulness of data• Still didn’t “use” the data• PDCA phase II – added 15 minutes at start of Big Room to review• Big Rooms now begin with critical conversations!
Early Results and Refinement
1. Survey sent by feedback sponsor (B&G) after Big Room to all attendees
2. Survey sent by B&G to recipients of each work hand-off, about the team partner who performed the work
3. Results routed to B&G in real-time – urgent issues are routed to team
4. B&G (with Client Feedback Tool) prepare results reports for start of next Big Room
5. Team members discuss anomalies (high scores, low scores, and comments)
6. Side-bars, if needed, occur during breaks to resolve intra-team issues
Early Results and RefinementBig Room Survey
“Long” format –takes ~ 3 minutes
to complete
Tracks five KPI’s based around the
“Conditions of Satisfaction”
Early Results and RefinementWork Hand-Off Survey
Short format – takes 30 seconds to
complete
Tracks five KPI’s based around the
“Conditions of Satisfaction”
Tracks three KPI’s based on
Quality, Schedule, and Budget
Early Results and Refinement
Surveys versus Plus/Delta: • Yes – they ARE different• +/ Δ quick visual of value-adds• Survey is DATA, focused on project performance
The Contractor’s Perspective: • Stories how feedback
has helped the GC role
Quantifying Work Hand-Off
Identify Key Deliverables to Track: • Design Development Floor Plan• Example Choosing by Advantages• Quiet Partner Gains a Voice• Validating Lean Processes
Focus on the Process: • Processes can be improved• People are hard to change
Quantifying Work Hand-Off
Design Development Floor Plan: • From a designer:
• From the owner: (two weeks later)
Quantifying Work Hand-Off
Example: A quiet voice is heard
• Responded to 6 out of 6 surveys
• Commented every time, raising issues 4 times
Tracking Conditions of Satisfaction
Definition• The criteria by which the outcome of a project is measured
Conditions of Satisfaction - HHH• On-going surveys of team performance against stated CoS• Visual indicator to facilitate big room discussion• Has identified low scores – need for improvement CoS• Has identified team disparity resulting in realignment efforts• Aided in identifying incomplete understanding of CoS• Increased visibility of individual scores facilitates team dialog
on issues & misalignment
Tracking Conditions of Satisfaction
The Conditions of Satisfaction (current draft)
Non-Institutional
Safe & Low Stress Admissions
Child Friendly Environment
Promote ActivitySupport Staff
Comforts Parents
Reset BH Benchmarks
Pre-Fab Bathroom Value Demonstration
QC Ethic
Production Efficiency
High Trust
Minimize DocsBetter Permitting
Better Handoffs Safe but Fast
Tracking Conditions of Satisfaction
Example – Centered Average, with High Deviation
How effectively are we minimizing design documentation, yet conveying rich understanding of preconstruction decisions, all while minimizing team risk?
Tracking Conditions of Satisfaction
Example – Averages, with high/low deviation
How effectively are we minimizing design documentation, yet conveying rich understanding of preconstruction decisions, all while minimizing team risk?
• 50% of team responded at or near “Met Expectations”• 50% split from Unacceptable to Excellent• Indicated need to determine cause of unbalance
Countermeasure: Deeper dive to determine Why (5-why) of Both Low and High Scores; Immediate Action
Further Exploration
• Expand use of visual feedback to team
• End User Retrospectives• Measure hand-offs from design
to field ops?• Measure deviation over time –
team alignment?• Enable real-time alerts to all• Designate survey events at pull
plan