FM Work Orders

Parts Acquisition

Project

Mission of FMFM exists to assure that Campus buildings and grounds enhance learningand meet compliance requirements in a cost effective manner, whileeducating students through labor

2

3

To finish the 2013-14 year with:

– 95% Customer Survey score

– Zero Lost-time accidents

– Zero Regulatory compliance issues

– 100% PM’s completed on time

– 10% reduction in WO turn time from 2012-13 baseline

Vision of FM

SIPOC of FM

4

Suppliers Inputs Process Outputs Customers

Students

Faculty

Staff

Completed PM & work

orders

Cleaned Spaces

Landscaped Grounds

Work Satisfaction

Survey

Suggested major

repairs or renovations

Training of students

Building/Fire Code

requirements

OSHA / EPA

regulations

SOP’s

Work Orders

Major Repair

requests

Cleaning &

Grounds

Schedules

Weather events

Events or Special

Requests

Materials Vendors

Parts Vendors

Tools & Training

EHS

College O&S

Management

Students

Faculty

Staff

5

Hi-Level FM Trades Work Order Process

Completed

Work

DocumentationFM Admin

Work

Performed

FM

Admin

Work Request

Major Repairs

PM Schedule

Closed

Work

Order

Work Order

PM Order

Customer

(Building Owner)

(FA)

(Other requestor)

FM Mgmt

Customer

Satisfaction

Survey

TMA

Database

SWOT Profile of FM

Strengths

• Select Trades skill sets

• Buy-in to College Mission

• Safety Culture

• Sustainability Culture

• Building ‘Owner’ process

Weaknesses

•Lack of historic data metrics

•Lack of historic customer focus

•Productivity rates & expectations

•Lack of robust PM system

•Select Trades skill sets

•Lack of Standard Work

Threats•Economic / budgetary constraints

•Competition from local industry

Opportunities•Full use of TMA

•Full use of Tracy Time System

•Full use of APPA HK standards

Gap Analysis Opportunities and Priorities

• The existing Work Order parts acquisition process is too time consumingwith non-valued added and expensive steps.

• Project focus is to:

• Identify value added & non-value added steps

• Eliminate non-value added steps

• Create Standard work

• Identify reduced cost and steps7

Mission of WO parts acquisitionThe Work Order parts acquisition process exists to procure the necessary parts to

complete work requests in an economic and effective manner so that buildings and

grounds enhance learning.

8

9

To finish the 2013-14 year with:

– Reduced parts acquisition expense

– Increased value-added work time for acquisitions

Vision of WO parts acquisition

SIPOC of WO parts acquisition

10

Suppliers Inputs Process Outputs Customers

Students

Faculty

Staff

Completed PM & work

orders

Cleaned Spaces

Landscaped Grounds

Work Satisfaction

Survey

Suggested major

repairs or renovations

Training of students

Building/Fire Code

requirements

OSHA / EPA

regulations

SOP’s

Work Orders

Major Repair

requests

Cleaning &

Grounds

Schedules

Weather events

Events or Special

Requests

Materials Vendors

Parts Vendors

Tools & Training

EHS

College O&S

Management

Students

Faculty

Staff

SWOT Profile of WO parts acquisition

Strengths

• Buy-in to College Mission

• Strong Process “Owner”

• New TMA system

Weaknesses

•Lack of historic data metrics

•Lack of historic customer focus

•Productivity rates & expectations

•Lack of Standard Work

Threats•Pushback of Trades technicians

•Lack of sense of urgency

Opportunities•Full use of TMA

•More opportune use of student labor

•Vendors open to “new” way of doing business

Project Charter• Mission – Establish an improved WO parts acquisition process.

• Burning platform – Existing process consumes too much time & expense

• Process Description –To establish a value-added WO parts acquisition process that provides real time

accuracy in TMA and reduces expense and non-value added work.

• Problem Statement – Present system is a mess. Leads to use of critical Trades resources to acquire parts

• Sponsor – Derrick Singleton

• Process Owner – Wayne Orr

• Team Lead – Ronnie VanHook

• Facilitator – Derrick Singleton

• Team – Derrick Singleton, Wayne Orr, Becky Berheide, Regina Williams,

Jeff Reed, David Wilkerson, David Tipton

Hi-Level Process Map (Before)

13

14

Hi-Level Process Map (After)

15

16

Report-out Final Notes

• An eight month review of data (July 2012 to February 2013) of how many invoices were processed bythe Facilities Management team and Accounting.

• A total of 1,602 were processed during the time frame – an average of ~200 per month or 50 per week.

• The average amount of these invoices during the study was $39. The lowest was for 38 cents

• Each invoice also indicated a trip off-campus by a trades person (often two) to obtain a part.

• A review of vendors and locations indicated that the average round-trip was ~5 miles.

• Hard data was unavailable on the time per trip, but is conservatively assumed that

each trip was 30 minutes.

17

Report-out Final Notes

• Per Finance (David Wilkerson), a trade report indicated the average cost to process

an invoice is $89.21.

• Alternatively, Fifth Third Bank, provider of the College P-Card, has a transaction cost of $21.83.

• Additionally, Fifth Third Bank pays the College a rebate of 1.5% on transactions.

• The need to lean out the project proved to have more opportunity than was originally

expected. The project focused on eliminating the trips to vendors by trades technicians,

the total number of trips, and the invoices created.

18

Report-out Final Notes

• The following changes have been implemented as the new process:

Vendors were negotiated with to obtain pricing discounts and/or “milk run” deliveries, the reduced the

cost of parts acquisition by lowering the total vendors dealt with and reduced the need for some pick-ups.

An analysis of the highest velocity of parts being turned was completed. As a result, 241 new parts that

were previously obtained from vendors were “internalized” to prevent trips.

The largest vendors were negotiated with to accept a monthly payment by PCard based on

one invoice, rather than the previous method of invoicing every single itemized part bought

during the month.

A new policy was implemented to only allow student labor in the FM Storeroom to be

able to leave campus to obtain parts, except in an emergency case

that had to be approved by a Team Leader.

19

Report-out Final Notes• The following Lean tools were utilized:

Spaghetti Diagram – though not specifically mapped, the tool was foremost in the thinking of the project.

By preventing technicians from leaving campus to obtain parts, they are not crisscrossing town and campus

to obtain parts, burning fuel and doing non-value added work.

Value Stream Map – the Current and Ideal VSM’s were mapped to identify where non-value added

work was occurring and where it could be eliminated. By eliminating the “muda” of back office

processing of invoices and the travel time of technicians from picking up parts and refocused

onto repair work, productivity is up and costs are down.

Kanban– by internalizing the inventory of 241 parts previously bought “as needed”,

these parts are now managed as the rest of the inventory with use of

kanban and pull refill.

Standard Work– a new directive that any parts pick-ups must be

coordinated by the Inventory Mgr has been implemented.20

Results• The following results have been identified:

The 200 trips to procure parts and 200 invoices process per month from July ’12 to Feb ‘13 have beenreduced on average over the last five months to 72 trips (64% reduction) and 6 invoices (97% reduction).

The previous cost of the process was estimated over 8 month study period to be in the range of

$9,829 to $17,842 per month to one that is averaging an expense of $305 per month.

The inventory increase of the 241 new parts added ~$4,000 of initial expense to the overall

inventory. However, inventory turns have improved from 2.92 during the 8-month study to 4.99 since.

Average inventory value with less parts during the 8-month study was $122.8K; average value over

the new period is $108.9K.

The new process allows for the tradesmen technicians to be able to remain on campus

repairing items and completing work orders, thus being more productive and

assuring that the mission is met of maintaining campus buildings

and grounds to be conducive to learning. 21

Report-out Final Notes

• The following productivity and customer service gains have been noted with the project:

Productivity– In the eight-month study period, a total of 6,461 work orders (807/month on average) were

completed. In the five-month period after the change, 4,381 work orders (876/month on average) have been

completed…an 8.6% productivity gain.

Customer Service– In the eight-month study period, the average Customer Satisfaction Index score

was 94.5%. In the five-month period after the change, the Customer Satisfaction Index score

was 96.0%.

22

Full Data• Double Click to see full datasheet for calculations of savings

•

23

Baseline

Avg trips

Miles/Tri

p

Gas

mileage

Avg Gas

Cost

Total trip

mileage

Total Gas

used

Total Gas

Cost

Avg

Techs/

trip

Avg

Time/

trip

Lost Tech

Time Tech Cost Lost Tech Cost

200 5 18 $3.50 1000 55.6 $194.44 1.5 0.5 150 $16.65 $2,497.50

JULY

Actual

trips

Miles/Tri

p

Gas

mileage

Avg Gas

Cost

Total trip

mileage

Total Gas

used

Total Gas

Cost

Tech

Trips

Avg

Time/

trip

Lost Tech

Time Tech Cost Lost Tech Cost

57 5 18 $3.50 285 15.8 $55.42 0 0.5 0 $16.65 $0.00

AUG

Actual

trips

Miles/Tri

p

Gas

mileage

Avg Gas

Cost

Total trip

mileage

Total Gas

used

Total Gas

Cost

Tech

Trips

Avg

Time/

trip

Lost Tech

Time Tech Cost Lost Tech Cost

80 5 18 $3.50 400 22.2 $77.78 0 0.5 0 $16.65 $0.00

SEP

Actual

trips

Miles/Tri

p

Gas

mileage

Avg Gas

Cost

Total trip

mileage

Total Gas

used

Total Gas

Cost

Tech

Trips

Avg

Time/

trip

Lost Tech

Time Tech Cost Lost Tech Cost

85 5 18 $3.50 425 23.6 $82.64 7 0.5 3.5 $16.65 $58.28

OCT

Actual

trips

Miles/Tri

p

Gas

mileage

Avg Gas

Cost

Total trip

mileage

Total Gas

used

Total Gas

Cost

Tech

Trips

Avg

Time/

trip

Lost Tech

Time Tech Cost Lost Tech Cost

79 5 18 $3.50 395 21.9 $76.81 6 0.5 3 $16.65 $49.95

NOV

Actual

trips

Miles/Tri

p

Gas

mileage

Avg Gas

Cost

Total trip

mileage

Total Gas

used

Total Gas

Cost

Tech

Trips

Avg

Time/

trip

Lost Tech

Time Tech Cost Lost Tech Cost

60 5 18 $3.50 300 16.7 $58.33 9 0.5 4.5 $16.65 $74.93