Lean Enterprise Processes in Facilities

SAN DIEGO COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT

Lean Enterprise Processes In FacilitiesPresented toPresented to

Community College Facilities Coalition

1

November 9, 2010

Lean Processes

Agenda

• Our Challenge

• Lean Custodial Practices– Identify services – Custodial Beat Leveling– Cleaning Standards– Management By Walking Around (MBWA)

• Lean Work Order Processes– Centralized Work Order Center– Service Level Agreement (SLA)– Work Flow Process Mapping– Material/Supply Store

Pl /S h d l– Planner/Schedulers– CMMS

• Electronic Work Order Delivery

2

• Safety/Training Programs

San Diego Community College District (SDCCD)

About the District

• 2nd Largest Community College District in CA2 Largest Community College District in CA

• 6th in Nation

• Centralized M & O

• 4 Regions – 3 main campuses (City, Mesa & Miramar Colleges)

– 6 Continuing Education campuses

3


About the District

Current Square FootageCurrent Square FootageBuildings = 2,078,008 Gross Square Feet (GSF)Parking = 377,712 Gross Square Feet (GSF)

Current Acres of Landscape = 130.2

Current Utilities ConsumptionCurrent Utilities Consumption Electric = $3,971,950Gas = $480,821Water = $774 070Water = $774,070Total = $5,226,841

4


About the District

Projected Square FootageAdditi l B ildi GSF 1 601 443Additional Building GSF = 1,601,443Total Building GSF = 3,679,451

Additional Parking GSF = 987,289Additional Parking GSF 987,289Total Parking GSF = 1,365,001

Grand Total GSF = 5,044,452

5


About the District

Projected Acres of Landscapedd l f dAdditional Acres of Landscape = 19Total Acres of Landscape = 149.2

Projected Utilities ConsumptionProjected Utilities ConsumptionAdditional Utility Costs = $4,542,390Total Annual Costs = $8,790,209

6

Lean Processes

Our Challenge

d• Current economic conditions continue to impact SDCCD

• SDCCD Facilities Services must reduce FY09‐16 forecasted expendituresforecasted expenditures

• While current state revenue is down SDCCDWhile current state revenue is down, SDCCD must plan for future doubling service base without doubling the budget

7

Lean Processes

Potential Cumulative SavingsFY FY 09/10

Custodial FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 Ave Salary

C t di l F t H/C 104 113 132 149 162 173 189 191 $ 58 643Custodial Forecast H/C 104 113 132 149 162 173 189 191 $ 58,643

Cust Forecast Salary $ 6,098,855 $ 6,650,098 $ 7,769,004 $ 8,731,333 $ 9,504,832 $ 10,169,255 $ 11,098,158 $ 11,227,172

Custodial Adj HC 77 82 88 100 122 130 140 147 45Custodial Adj HC 77 82 88 100 122 130 140 147 45

Custodial Adj Budget $ 4,497,197 $ 4,782,522 $ 5,187,077 $ 5,878,320 $ 7,150,669 $ 7,622,296 $ 8,208,826 $ 8,597,611

Delta $ 1,601,658 $ 1,867,576 $ 2,581,927 $ 2,853,013 $ 2,354,162 $ 2,546,959 $ 2,889,331 $ 2,629,561 $ 19,324,187

Hold HC Flat untill projection exceeds current HC $ 13,273,027 p j $ , ,

Maintenance

Maint Forecast H/C 45 50 57 64 69 73 79 80 $ 76,457

Maint Forecast Salary $ 3,440,546 $ 3,793,010 $ 4,344,262 $ 4,857,286 $ 5,245,685 $ 5,579,036 $ 6,044,656 $ 6,108,880

Maintenance Adj H/C 29 32 37 41 45 47 51 52 28

Maint Adj Salary $ 2,236,355 $ 2,465,457 $ 2,823,770 $ 3,157,236 $ 3,409,695 $ 3,626,373 $ 3,929,027 $ 3,970,772

Delta $ 1,204,191 $ 1,327,554 $ 1,520,492 $ 1,700,050 $ 1,835,990 $ 1,952,663 $ 2,115,630 $ 2,138,108 $ 13,794,676

8$25,863,512 Opportunity Hold HC Flat untill projection exceeds current HC $ 12,590,485

Lean Processes

Benchmarking and Goals

Custodial • Beginning cleanable sf ‐ 13,900 per custodian• Increase to 25,000 sf

Maintenance• Beginning cost per sf ‐ $3.93Beginning cost per sf $3.93• Reduce to $2.25 sf

9

Lean Processes

Custodial Practices

• Identify our core mission

• Identify how we were spending time

• Load Levelingg

• Increase cleaning square footage

• Beat books• Beat books

• Cleaning Standards

• MBWA

• Pride Program

10

g

Lean Processes

Assessment of Services

• Findings– Opening doors

– Stock room duties

– Personal assistants

– Event set upsp

– Temperature checks

– MoversMovers

– Cleaning

11

Lean Processes

Opportunities for Improvementpp p

• Get back to Core missionGet back to Core mission • Board of Trustees and Chancellor buy in

– Developed an door opening policyDeveloped an door opening policy– Developed an out of scope work list– Directing work requests through the call centerDirecting work requests through the call center– Plan and schedule work

12

Lean Custodial Practices

Custodial Load Level – Finding the Balance

• Identify the type of space use and the finishes used within the space to identify the base cleaning factor for

13

p y gthat space type


Assign Cleaning Time Based on Space

14

Calculate the time to clean based on the assignable square footage and the base cleaning factor


Summarize Head Count Requirements

• With all buildings added, the total required HC for Level 2 Cleaning at San Diego Mesa College is 26

The space is then summed from room up to building and then up to campus.– This leads to a qualitative method to determine the proper HC requirements

– Enables the supervisor to develop project teams to tackle larger projects that

15

Enables the supervisor to develop project teams to tackle larger projects that require more man power and are outside the daily cleaning requirements


SDCCD Cleaning Standards

• SDCCD defined the acceptable level of cleaning for district as a Level 2. At the start of the project they were consistently at a level 3 – 4.

16

p j y y

• This underlined the need to improve the level of service


SDCCD Cleaning Standards – Level 1 & 2

17


Implementation of Pride Program

Began by implementing Management by Walking

A d (MBWA) t t k b ildi Th i di tAround (MBWA) to track building scores. The indicator

of success for this phase was simply number or

percentage of MBWA inspections completed over time.

18


Tracking and Trending Discrepancies

19

Buildings are inspected and discrepancies are tracked by work week


Management By Walking Around (MBWA)

First Goal of the

Pride Program was

to inspect all

buildings consistently

20


Transitioning from MBWA to Pride Program

• Once the team has been trained on doing inspections, and they are occurring regularly it was time to move toand they are occurring regularly, it was time to move to the Pride Program– Designed to build a sense of Pride with those who have

hi f h f iownership for the space or function

• Began entering the data of discrepancies into a d b b k h l d ldatabase to begin tracking the actual data vs. simply whether the inspection has occurred.

• Track and trend the types of discrepancies and the total overall score.

21


Converting the Data to Building Scores

• Score is created by taking the number of discrepancies and subtracting from 100.

• The score is then normalized based on building sized with 20 000 ASF assumed as normal

22

sized with 20,000 ASF assumed as normal


Trend by Discrepancy: Campus Example

23

Each week, the top discrepancies are identified

Lean Custodial PracticesDiscrepancy Trend Over Time: Campus Example

esDiscrep

anci

24

Work Week


Use of Data to Improve Performance

The data collected from this tool/process is used to:Drive for Continuous Improvement– Drive for Continuous Improvement

– Chart performance goals for a campus, department or individual

• Campus Trend• Trend by Discrepancy (i.e., burned out lights)• Trend by Area Owner

– Implement a recognition program• “Pride Award” based on best scoring building• Most Improvedp

– Performance Management• Improve area by 10%• Lowest performing area owner

25

Lowest performing area owner

Lean Work Order Processes

Maintenance Assessment

• Identify how we were spending time

• Examine prioritiesExamine priorities

• Scrutinize processes

Sh ld d i i hi• Should we redesign or improve this process

• What tools do we need to do this

26


Maintenance Process Findings

• We were a reactive organization

• No formal method of prioritizationNo formal method of prioritization

• Inefficient, unpredictable processes

T h i d hi ld i f h i i• Too much windshield time for technicians

• We needed a more robust computerized maintenance management system

27


Maintenance Process Improvement

• Develop a method prioritization

k fl• Design new work flow processes

• Create a centralized work distribution center

• Standardize triage and follow up procedures to support processes and reduce windshield timepp p

• Purchase a more robust computerized maintenance management systemmaintenance management system

• Start an MRO store

28


Work Prioritization

• SDCCD ‐ in its quest to be “service oriented” ‐SDCCD in its quest to be service oriented had no formal work prioritization processes– This led to 85%+ of work being reactiveThis led to 85%+ of work being reactive

– Open WO grew to in excess of 1,600

• A prioritization matrix was developed to• A prioritization matrix was developed to establish a service level agreement within the DistrictDistrict– Approved by Chancellor's Cabinet and Management Services Council

29

Services Council


Priority Matrix: Service Level Agreement

30

Lean Work Order ProcessesService Level Agreement: Priority Level 1 Example

31


Call Center / Work Distribution Center/

• Centralized

• Standardized

• Customer Service

• Comments

32


Lean Process Flows: Prioritize Work

33


Lean Process Flows: Triage

34


Work Flow

Assign Receive WO Verify Details Turn WO into

Priority 1‐3 Work – Maintenance Supervisor

Priority 4 & 5 Work – Maintenance Planner / Scheduler

Receive Request Scope Job Assign Resources

Receive WO from Tech

Verify Details of WO Scheduling /

Planning

Request Received Scope Job Plan JobSchedule in “Look Ahead Schedule”

Receive WO Back

Update Job Plan

Receive Planned Schedule

Assign WO to Techs

Provide Work Direction

Receive WO from Tech

Verify Details of WO

Turn WO into Scheduling / Planning

Priority 4 & 5 Work – Maintenance Supervisor

Planning

• Planning / Scheduling is focused on future work• All ongoing work is under the direct control of the maintenance supervisor

35

• All ongoing work is under the direct control of the maintenance supervisor


Without Planning / Scheduling

Activity %Cleanup and putting away tools 5Idle Time 9Material delays 5Passdown meetings (start / end of shift, feeding work to technicians) 5Starting late / quitting early 4Too many technicians per job / task 7Traveling and Transportation 16Unclear work direction 16Sub Total of non‐productive time 67

Productive time = 100‐67 or 33%Thi t l t t 2 7 h i 8 h hift

36

This translates to 2.7 hrs in an 8 hr shift


Lean Process Flows: Planning / Scheduling

37


Productive Maintenance Time

Average reactive organizationsAverage reactive organizations have a wrench time of

only 20% while proactive organizations approachorganizations approach Maintain 60% or higher. 1g

38


Productive Maintenance Time

The Case for Planner / Schedulers

50%

60%

s 50%

60%

s

Preventative

40%

• Three techs without planning • 3 x 30% = 90%

oduc

tive

Hour

s

Preventative

40%

• Three techs without planning • 3 x 30% = 90%

oduc

tive

Hour

s

Reactive30% • One planner with two technicians

• 1 x 0% + 2 x 50% = 100%• 50% / 30% = 1.67 ( 67% Improvement )

• 45 techs x 1.67 = 75 technicians

Pro

Reactive30% • One planner with two technicians

• 1 x 0% + 2 x 50% = 100%• 50% / 30% = 1.67 ( 67% Improvement )

• 45 techs x 1.67 = 75 technicians

Pro

• In today's economy, how are you going to get 67% more resources for maintenance?

% Wrench Time

• In today's economy, how are you going to get 67% more resources for maintenance?

% Wrench Time

39

Copyright © 2009, Step Function – FMC, L.L.C.11/3/2010


Megamation (CMMS)g ( )

• Web based

• Work request entry by customers and Facilities

• Useful dashboard/work order console

• Auto generated due date for priorities 1‐4Auto generated due date for priorities 1 4

• Key performance indicator reports

• Time keeping

• Unlimited training

40

• Unlimited training



41



42



43


Work Order Metrics

Process implemented in conjunction with a new CMMS system

– Open WO and Work Order Aging dropped dramatically• Open WO from 1,600+ to ~500

WO A i 70 d t j t d 20

44

• WO Aging 70+ days to just under 20


Work Order Metrics

Average Days Open

6972 74 75 74

Average Days OpenAverage Days Open

45

54

62

69

38

32

16

23

1411 11 10 11 13 15

10 911 11 10 11 10 96

45


Reduce Windshield Time

•5 technicians x 1 hour windshield time daily x 45 weeks=1125 hoursx 45 weeks 1125 hours

•3 months per region3 months per region•Reduced access to supply house•Painters successPainters success

46


MRO Stores

•45 technicians x 1 hour windshield time daily•45 technicians x 1 hour windshield time daily x 45 weeks = 2045 hours

•Build of materials •Kit materials•Kit materials•Truck stock•Drop ship•Drop ship•P/O

47


Electronic Work Order Delivery

Objective

Electronic Work Order Delivery

ObjectiveTo enable maintenance employees to receive work orders, and log time on task, by use of held cellularorders, and log time on task, by use of held cellular device.

Common Types of Operating Platforms• Laptop• Laptop• Cellular

48


Electronic Work Order DeliveryElectronic Work Order Delivery

Integration To Maintenance Management Software• Browser • Designing a form that would interface with our maintenance softwaremaintenance software

T ti d I l t tiTesting and Implementation• Pilot test groupCh i• Champions

• Roll out to all users• Two key components for success

49

• Two key components for success

Lean ProcessesHand Held With Screen

• Log on

Hand Held With Screen

• Work Count• Work Count

50


Hand Held With Screen

Open Work Order

51

Lean ProcessesHand Held With Screen

Time start Time stop

52


Electronic Work Order DeliveryElectronic Work Order Delivery

BENEFITS• Less paper and printing• “Real time” logging of time on taskReal time logging of time on task• Can be assigned to multiple employees• Less driving time• Less driving time• Less data entry from paper to computer for staff,

allowing more time for other tasks• Fewer lost or misplaced work orders

53

Lean ProcessesSafety/Training

• Commitment To Our Employees• Universal Reporting Form• Universal Reporting Form• Safety Topics By DepartmentE l H T i d• Employee Hours Trained

• Vendor Training Fairs • Accidents and Near Misses

54

Lean Processes

Safety/Training

55

Lean Processes

Safety/Trainingy/ g

56

Lean Processes

Safety/Training

57

SAN DIEGO COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT

D b C i D B t

Questions?Deb Canning Don BetzRegional Facilities Officer Acting Director Facilities ServicesSan Diego Community College District San Diego Community College DistrictMesa College [email protected] @[email protected] (619) 388‐6422(619) 388‐2814

Charlie Williams David Umstot PECharlie Williams David Umstot, PEBusiness Process Supervisor Vice Chancellor, Facilities ManagementSan Diego Community College District San Diego Community College District [email protected] [email protected]( ) ( )(619)388‐6422 (619) 388‐6456

58

Lean Enterprise Processes in Facilities

Documents

Transcript of Lean Enterprise Processes in Facilities